...because they are a bunch of anti-liberty, power-hungry control-freak people out to try to rule and rape the population of the world and to do so they have to know what everyone spends their money on? 

Kind of like the reasons they (and others such as India) don't like cash....it is too easy to not report everything you do to the morally bankrupt authorities.

Not surprised.  If they're ignorant about one, they'll be ignorant about two. Or three.

The short answer is yes, the old transactions would be lost.

The longer answer (which I'm sure you figured out) also includes, all backups would have to be lost for them to be lost forever.  Likewise without software modifications new nodes wouldn't be able to start up if that occurred and in all likelihood bitcoin would collapse - that is as the software is now, future changes could be made to mitigate some (maybe all) of these impacts.

If usage growth continues at this pace the fiat price will continue to climb.  Let's hope that a forced hard fork etc doesn't screw it up.

Given it happens on many non-bitcoin exchanges, is this surprising?  But, is it even relevant? Probably not.

Those are exactly right.  Plus I would also add that people are using bitcoin due to the difficulty in making changes to the protocol which protects EVERYONE using it. If it was easy to change, you might as well in in fiat.

On the second one, I only see one application error, not "lots" - just a notification that the database is corrupted:
2017-03-24 17:24:14 Corruption: block checksum mismatch
2017-03-24 17:24:14 *** System error while flushing: Database corrupted


As far as the first one, I haven't tried any recent version of bitcoin on a Mac with less than 8GB and usually 16GB of RAM.  I too suspect that achow101 is correct that it is a memory issue on the first machine. 

Have you tried Apple Hardware Test (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201257) on either machine with the extended testing to see if you do indeed have no hardware problems? 

Seems like typical click bait:
"now that a sizeable number of miners are running Bitcoin Unlimited"

I haven't seen any source for that, only that a sizable number are SIGNALING for it, but using Bitcoin Core. 

Hash rate would've dropped significantly if they were during the most recent BU bug.

>"undisclosed update"

This is one key.  Anyone who is supporting BU under these terms, except as an alt, has another agenda.

Long, not worth the read. The author shows their own ignorance.

For anyone who cares about Bitcoin (and OSS in general), this should be enough to write off BU completely. 

If we wanted a centralized, closed-source system, we'd be using banks.

In general, yes.

The odds of changing one character in the base58 address and having it still be valid is about 1 in 4.2 billion (1 in 2^32) since it is a 32 bit checksum.  This address can be generated by a wallet, by hand or some other method, just to be clear. 

There is a checksum in there so the odds of mistyping an address and having it be valid is very low.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address

That is the QT version.  It sounds like you are running Bitcoin Core, which would be something like version 0.14.0, 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1 etc.  Anyway, there is a difference between Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Unlimited etc, so wanted to make sure we were giving advice for the right software.  Anyway, most (all?) versions of BTU and BXT also use QT for their user interface, so "Bitcoin-QT" could be something one of the above.  :-)   The software would be Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Unlimited etc. with Bitcoin Core being the reference implementation and the others forked.

But, yes, all running Bitcoin Core are full nodes.

Just to be clear, is this Bitcoin Core? Assuming this is Bitcoin Core, what version are you running?

Bitcoin Core nodes, do help and are better, in general.

"EU parliament says 1+1 can't equal 2".

In a free world, people don't have to subject themselves to authoritarianism if they don't wish to do so. It is pathetic that the EU wants to control everyone and everything. 

"Economic majority" is a term that has been in use for quite a long time.  Making up "facts" that it was created "recently" doesn't help the BU case.

Even a cursory search shows it in use in 2012:
(
see, e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1154809#msg1154809
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3945/how-could-the-bitcoin-protocol-be-changed-has-this-ever-occurred#comment4983_3948

 )

And this is why developers who (a) are unfamiliar with the code, and (b) most importantly, are unfamiliar with good practices in developing high reliability, security critical software cannot be trusted to do so.

Testing occurs with the asserts active. Compiling without them (or any other debug code) creates different (and consequently untested) software. When security is critical, this is terrible practice and a mistake novice developers make.  

Further, different code can expose (different) compiler bugs etc.  Changing compiler optimization levels can cause similar issues.  

It is appalling that the BU developers are peddling nonsense like the quotations above - it only exposes their own ignorance.

The reason why asserts are left enabled, for CCN's reference, are as above.

The BU people must be in a real panic to have to push falsehoods like this. If you look at the timelines, their claims don't add up.  Publishing a fix on github and not thinking that there are people who will exploit it is just stupid.

I guess so, but how would people get Yuan in there to trade if not via an exchange?  Seems like the PBOC is merely playing games. :-)