It would also hurt it significantly in terms of usage. Imagine if all corporations or businesses in the US couldn't accept Bitcoin and all Bitcoin-based businesses were banned? Bitcoin's origins were as an anarchist tool and a means of privacy and reduced government control but it's growth in the long term requires adoption by more people - people that don't care about all that but just want a currency that is convenient for them. Having bans imposed is the exact opposite of convenient TBH.

Not sure what you're doing with your money - but I doubt anyone would classify earning 5000% on a single investment 'easy'. The crypto exchange market has both tiny volume and incredible volatility - so unless you were in on a successful pump and dump it wouldn't be viable to actually double it using exchanges. I'd be more inclined to think you'd lose a large portion of it.

I can't understand why they'd need to. From their perspective they have control over the USD to a great extent and it currently dominates markets in terms of usage and as a financial tool. If they ever felt threatened by the existence of Bitcoin they could simply choose to ban it by passing legislation - and you're not going to see the disappearance of the USD without the disappearance of America itself. It's so incredibly unlikely that I doubt the US government would even be worried, at best Bitcoin can co-exist with other currencies - I doubt I'll see a day when Bitcoin dominates all currencies.

There really isn't a need for him anymore - at the early stages he was a key contributor not only in terms of coding but the ideas behind what Bitcoin should be and become. That stage has passed long ago - all it would do now is satisfy the curiosity of some people and present a target for himself to be tracked down by people who either want to prosecute him or want to blackmail him for his coins. I doubt he'll ever resurface given that neither of those scenarios are good for him and he gains nothing by returning.

I'm not an expert on Linux security - but IIRC linux is incredibly well locked down in terms of user privileges - far more so than Windows. As long as you don't run around as a superuser account all day, generally even if malware gets in you should be ok. Not to mention that it is rather rare for malware to target Linux given that it is used by such a small percentage of people. I do think it more likely that the hacker managed to access your coins via working out your password then bruteforcing brain wallets.

Got to hand it to you - that is some fine detective work to be honest. I'm sort of surprised and not, not really surprising that people have bad sides and don't want to stain their reputation so they use another account to try and scam people. I'm just curious what ndnhc has to say about it, thought he at least tried to act like a decent member of the community.

I don't think a casino exists that doesn't have some limits set in play. Otherwise a billionaire could just walk in and empty the house in like 3 bets. You have to remember casinos are also playing the numbers game - they don't mind having less big betters and larger bet volume - they make their money from the -EV gambler's take on. The only exception would be games like poker where their rake would obviously be larger with larger pots and therefore high rollers. But once again in games like poker they assume 0 risk - it's a unloseable proposition.

I'm not saying it's a unique weakness - just pointing out that such a weakness does exist and so it is important to at least check signatures and match hashes if you can't/aren't bothered to check the source yourself. I have a basic proficiency in programming so I'd doubt I personally would be able to go over the whole code without at least a couple of days of research into JS. Some people just can't at all - and that's understandable - it's simply important to provide easy access to safeguards and precautionary measures.

I wouldn't put huge bets on Nadal anymore - he's not even remotely as strong as he used to be. IIRC last year was when he started falling off on clay - and this year looks to be worse, he's only managed to grab a single title on clay. Nadal may be strong on clay now - but he isn't the unbeatable force that he used to be on it, Djokovic gives him a good run for his money and his injuries seem to catching up with him.

But then how do you manage to do anything at all without micromanaging everything? There is a reason government exists - you can't have individuals vote on every single proposal, every single time a new one pops up. Theoretically, that would be the best as power would reside with society and not a select handful. However, who really would have the time to read newly drafted bills over and over again? Who would be educated enough to make a proper analysis? It's easy to say - but the reality is, is that power structures like government exist as a band-aid solution they don't fix these underlying issues but they are the best solution we currently have.

Straight up this. I don't understand why some users have a perception fixated upon the idea that Bitcoin will somehow make the world a better place. Bitcoin is basically just the money you have in your wallet and bank account made marginally more efficient and able to avoid adjustments by government (i.e. expanding the money supply).

The only thing I could think of is potentially making it cheaper to transfer funds overseas for overseas health workers. But even then the difference would be minimal at best.

Well aside from RNG weaknesses - the other main issue is the potential for someone to hack the site and upload a version that has predetermined private keys. That way when it's used the private keys produced will be the same and thus the hacker can steal without ever having to have a direct internet connection or break through encryption. Albeit it would be rare, and the best way around it would be validating the source code for yourself and checking GPG signatures.

This is actually a very valid response - banks are necessary to fund startup and small business initially which in turn are important for both economic and social growth.

@OP: As far as I'm aware there is no reliable Bitcoin bank - there would be tonnes of web wallets and scams out there pretending but IIRC no licensed and insured entity which offers interest on Bitcoin deposits currently exist. I suspect it may because there just isn't enough volume of Bitcoin deposits in all likelihood to make the venture profitable.

Yeah, Bitcoin will only grow if retailers are willing to accept them (first as a commodity - as they will likely cash out via coinbase etc., but then hopefully later on accept Bitcoin as a currency - as it was designed to be), and retailers generally will only do so if there is enough vocalization from customers and they want some publicity as well. As an individual it isn't easy to convince a company to add another payment method - you can send letters/emails and talk to them - but overall, the best is just to keep on using Bitcoin and trying to find more people interested.

You make a valid point - if any specific DC goes down so do the nodes hosted on those VPS's. The best way to go about it would be hosting your own node on your own computer (not sure if a Rasp Pi could do it) or potentially buying a VPS from a collocated provider with their own DC - that way at least you'd have more redundancy.

@OP: Take a look at lowendtalk.com they should have some VPS providers which accept Bitcoin with their own DC's.

Depends on how risky those investments are. If you're in low a risk investment (i.e. low risk shares) then you can afford to differentiate less as it's less likely that they'll fall rapidly in value. Nonetheless, it's still always a good idea to invest in different financial instruments as well as different businesses - having an investment in the housing market will insulate you from a falling share market for example.

I don't really see how this isn't thwarted by the same thing as unmarked bills? Unless the bank knows exactly which bills were stolen and all of them have this new technology - you're not going to see a difference. Not to mention if they just spent it, unless the merchant their spending it had the ability to discern the difference it would pass through unnoticed. This technology would require literally everyone to be on board - something that is incredibly unlikely to occur.

Not to mention that this does't deal with the bigger issue of organised crime money. Nowadays, money isn't illegally gained by robbing banks but rather illegal drug operations etc.

I would think that the bounty would be in BTC - doubt he would actually have 1M+ just lying around in his bank account (but you never know). These are really moot points though, if the contract is in fact a forgery anyone with some spare time (and a computer) or a solid understanding of mathematics could easily verify that the hashes and the message don't match up. And hence, the 1M is just more to prove a point that he's sure that the contract is indeed a forgery.

No you're perfectly correct. It's all posted in here anyway: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178608.0.

I would think activity and post history are major determining factors of price rather than simply just account rank.

TBH, it's going to be profitable as long as there is a demand for it and people are willing to pay what MD's sets. Obesity is really a lifestyle issue - you can't really force corporations and businesses to stop selling products because people can get fat, it's up to the people to control their diet and eating habits. Of course you can always get them to offer healthier choices (i.e. salads etc) but there is no guarantee anyone will actually buy them.

From a Bitcoin perspective, any new business acceptance should be considered to be good - given that it helps promote Bitcoin further.