Let's be honest for a moment, and agree that first time users of Bitcoin will fall for this. They might have heard about Bitcoin and how much it is worth and just follow the instructions to see what happens. The sender of the email wants to get hold of the ownership of the created wallet. <Why>?

In most cases new users will have no BTC in that wallet, and if they find out after two days that there is no BTC coming their way, they will not bother to find out anything about Bitcoin.

More experienced users will never send them that information, so it will be a fruitless exercise. What do you think?

If they create the digital version of their fiat currency, it will fail too. It will be built on the same principle of a failing system. The people will have no choice in the matter, because these countries will force them with laws to use their version.

Bitcoin will be banned, because it will be seen as the rival currency and it will be outlawed. Governments have the power to outlaw any fiat or digital equivalent, if they perceive it as a threat to their national currency.

This is why most countries want to ban Bitcoin use as a currency. They want to protect the currency they can control.  

In a way, you have to agree with him. The adoption is slower than it is supposed to be, because the entry into Bitcoin is too complex and technical. We need to remove the obstacles and the only way to do that, is to pay salaries of workers in Bitcoin.

They should not have to rely on exchanges and LB to get hold of Bitcoin, it should rather be the other way around. They should struggle to convert BTC into fiat.

Their main goal seems to be, to create products geared to mainstream adoption. I am not sure if the first <Bitcoin computer> was so successful in doing that, but it's definitely a platform for developers to create tools and apps for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem.

Let's hope the next product from them, will push Bitcoin adoption through the roof. 

Well for one thing, it would help with the government transparency in the whole procurement system. There are way too much corruption in governments around the world. They should place all government tenders and transactions on the Blockchain, for everyone to audit and monitor.

If someone acquired a tender, people who competed for that same tender, should validate that they were not the cheapest option and no money was paid for bribes.

If this was one of the people who bought Bitcoin when it was between $1 and $100, they would have posted the opposite of this. It's just bad timing and bad luck for most of the late adopters. Getting impatient will not grow your investment. I have shares performing worst than what you lost on your Bitcoin investment.

Put on your Big boy pants, and work on improving the whole Bitcoin community, but waiting for the price to increase will just frustrate you more.

I do not know, if the budget concious person will want to commit to a  long-term subscriptions for content over a pay-per-click micropayments option. You could chase a lot of people away from your service, if you encourage them to commit to a long-term subscription.

Some people only use some services once for a reason, and do not need a long-term commitment.

Why not use a combination of methods to split up the risk and also the amount into smaller chunks? If you send to one person in China and do Localbitcoin with 20 people it would be more manageable than risking one amount in one transaction. The banks flag deposits above a certain threshold anyway, even if it is send in chunks over a long period. I hope this is a legal transaction, and not some tax avoidance thing or drug deal, because I do not want to be part of that.

What do you say? ^hmmm^

Would you mind explaining the 2 of 2 party escrow, compared to the normal escrow agent option? The diagram is not very clear on that. I also like the fact that it's using the Tor network to add some privacy, but it will once again turn into a Silkroad scene. 

Please explain. ^clueless^

What would be the goal behind this? Is this a white hat, just showing the possible exploits in the network or are there other motives behind this? In the end this will lead to more people not trusting the Bitcoin network and deciding to give up on the whole idea. Yes, Bitcoin was not brought down with this attack, but it is very disruptive. If the goal is to identify holes in the system, it should be submitted to the core developers and tested on the TestNet not on the live Blockchain.

It is not fun anymore and it disrupts business, if it delays transactions.

Do we currently assume that most of the coins being mined are sold immediately to cover the cost to mine it? If that is true, and the hash rate stay at the same levels and the block reward is lower, more miners will have to sell to cover their cost.

So assuming the price of Bitcoin does not rise enough to cover the difference, more Bitcoins will have to be sold to cover the cost of mining. If we also assume, miners only sold a small percentage of their mined coins to cover their cost.

This will then in theory cancel the greater demand, because a larger percentage of the mined coins will have to be sold to cover the mining cost?   

Do you think the time stamp on the forum was changed to mask his identity? The moment you access the forum and you post something, the time stamp of the forum is used. Would he or they go through so much trouble to only post in specific time zones, to mask the identity?

It is a possibility, but highly unlikely. I do much of my work late at night when the kids are asleep and I am not at work, so the time of posting will not have any bearing on my location anyway.

I am also curios to know how the halving will affect the Bitcoin price next year. In theory, if all mined coins are sold after they were mined and it continue after the halving, the supply would be 50% less and the demand will be 50% more. So we should see a 100% increase in the price.

That is, if all mined coins are sold or converted to fiat immediately after it was mined and not held. If they hodl these coins, the demand should be higher and the price should reflect that too. In theory.

This is why we have sites like these, http://www.badbitcoin.org/ just report the bad sites and refer and share this link to as many people as possible. These services will quickly get their act together, when sites like badbitcoin.org become one of the more popular sites in the Bitcoin world.

A simple bad review of a site, will pop up on a Google search and people will avoid these services. Do your part and report these bad sites. ^hmf^

The short term speculator will sell some at $300, because they would make a small profit. I on the other hand think that the Bitcoin price could very easily reach the $1000 in 2016, just after the Halfing. I will wait for that to happen, rather than selling now for a small profit.

I never sell more than 50% of what I hodl anyways. Just to be sure. 

The main function for this in my opinion, would be to disguise your identity. Most people believe that Bitcoin become fully anonymous when you create a new Bitcoin address for every transaction you make. I guess the Trezor developers was building on that concept, to disguise your Bitcoin use to make individual tracking more complex and time consuming.

It is a nice feature and could help to keep your spending habits a bit more private. 

You have to remember every job, needs a different tool. The camera you mentioned has a processor developed for only one function and that is to process those light images to digital images. The processors created for mining, called ASIC's are 100% developed to solve the complex mathematical calculations for Bitcoin mining and are much better for that job.

So you will have the wrong tool for the job, when you use that processor.

There is a video on youtube, from the Bitcoin network that use this <grain of sand> as a example, but they say that the sand on the earth and a few thousand other planets will not be enough to equal the math needed to calculate the Addresses that can be created from that algorithm.

I will search for it and post it here, when I have a bit more time.

I know something went wrong at Blockchain.info a while ago, and duplicate Bitcoin addresses where created due to the randomness of the generator not being random at all. <short explanation> The hacker who identified this, gave all the Bitcoins back to the users with these duplicate Bitcoin address & private key parings.

That is a lot of but's and if's We hope to see a increase in transaction volumes, but we need massive adoption for that kind of transaction volumes. I also think most pools will combine efforts to get those 50 Btc blocks and the smaller individual pools will be pushed out of mining.

Let's hope the adoption increase enough to surpass the block rewards, long before it reach zero.

Ok, If you take into account how much electricity is used to operate banks and the computers and networks they use, and the cooling systems and the security equipment, Bitcoin are only using a fraction of that.

This is total fud and should be ignored. A poor attempt to discredit Bitcoin. Looks like everyone is looking for a way to attack Bitcoin.