http://www.techworm.net/2014/03/mtgox-source-code-leaked-by-hacker-on.html

As a developer all I can say is ...
I have nothing to say just stunned silence that this was the codebase used to process millions of dollars and BTC everyday.

Your losing hope?  It is a scam.  It always was a scam.  You give them Bitcoins, they give you nothing.  The system is working exactly as they intended.  I mean you have 5+ pages of documented evidence of a scam.  Why would a scammer who already robbed you of your bitcoins clean, give them back?

It has already been done multiple times both exact copies of Bitcoin and modified version (commonly called altcoins).  You are free to do it again at anytime but people are also free to ignore such attempts.

So let me know when you launch "newBitcoin".

I wouldn't say cheapest more like only.  Fees using mpesa range from 3% to 11%+ (above the cost of phone and cellular plan).

Good point.

Ironically is that happened it would reduce regulation as Dealer if Foreign Currency is generally less regulated at the state level than money transmitters.  Come on Somalia make Bitcoin your legal tender.

Each clients will independently select the longest VALID chain using the internal rules of the client.  An invalid block can never be in the longest chain.  A client on the current fork would see ANY "the gox block" as invalid and it would also see any block built off that blocks as invalid as well.  It would never be the valid longest chain even if it had a billion more blocks than our current longest chain.  Miners aren't the only element of the security model in Bitcoin.  Each node independently verifies all data according to the rules in that node and discards data which it deems is invalid.

Try imagining a simpler scenario, a miner mines a block with a trillion BTC reward.  By your statement above as long as it doesn't break the checkpoints and is in the longest chain all nodes would be forced to use it. A super cool way to mint a trillion new BTC into existence and an attack which would obviously have been attempted by now.  I think you can see how flawed that security model is.  Thankfully Bitcoin doesn't use a "miners are gods and anything they give us must be obeyed" security model, it uses a "trustless" security model where each node implicitly distrusts information received from other nodes until the node independently validates it.

So someone can make a "BailoutCoin" client and some miners (maybe even 51% or miners) can start mining that chain.  However the current chain will see blocks on that chain (after the bailout block) as no more valid than Litecoin blocks are valid on the Bitcoin network.  You can't force all users to use the new "BailoutCoin" client so users will have a choice (much like they do with 100+ altcoins today).

You can never changed Bitcoin all you can do is fork it and convince people to use the fork.  Unless 100% of users accept the new fork, then the existing fork will also co-exist.


No offense but that is obvious.  

IPO probably doesn't mean what you think it does because no Bitcoin related company has ever had an IPO.  The timeline for a public offering is measured in years and requires solid revenue, operating history, and a minimum capitalization.  MtGox doesn't meet the criteria for listing on any exchange, and is currently in bankruptcy so that is dead in the water.

In the real world an Initial Public Offering isn't something done trivially.  Even coinbase or bitpay have no shot of an IPO today, maybe in a couple more years if they continue to be well run, and grow their businesses.

You may mean a private placement?  A debt for equity swap is one method of funding a private placement.  There are two issues with that, the first is private placements are limited to accredited investors and in Japan they are limited to 49 shareholders.

No idea although there is no guarantee that some or any miners will accept tx with a fee as low as 0.01 mBTC.  The more relevant question would be to ask the mining pools what their fee policies are and if it will change once v0.90 is released.

If by "best" you mean completely wrong on multiple levels and utterly useless then yes it is the "best".  Nothing wrong with simplifying a concept but if you do such in such a manner that you make completely false statements that kinda defeats the purpose.

All miners is not sufficient to change the Bitcoin protocol it requires all users, all existing clients to be upgraded.  Otherwise there is a fork and users will choose the one they want to use.

Each node works independently.  Any node running v0.9 will relay tx with only a fee of 0.01 mBTC per KB (vs 0.1mBTC per KB for v0.8.6).  The network will have nodes on different versions but once a significant majority is running v0.9 or later will become reliable to relay tx with a fee that low.

Of course miners are free to set whatever fee requirements they see fit (even larger than 0.1 mBTC if they want) so being relayed is no guarantee the tx will be included in the next block.

None of those things.

The declaration of legal tender would apply only to that country and only in a very limited scope. 

In the US legal tender means it can be used to pay debts, damages awarded by courts are denominated in legal tender, and legal tender is only accept method to pay tax liabilities. Nothing more.

Outside of that extremely small scope you can use other currencies in the US.  For example a shop in the US could accept Euros, pay customers in Euros, issue invoices in Euros, have Euro denominated bank accounts, etc.  A shop can even refuse to accept payment in US dollars (but not for debt). 

So legal tender has a very limited scope and Bitcoin could (not saying it will) become the most used currency in the world without being legal tender in any nation.

To the OP you can not perform a spend of zero.  Bitcoin doesn't work on the concept of balances it works on the concepts of inputs and outputs.  When you make a transaction it has one or more inputs which are references to the outputs of prior transactions.   You can't spend part of an output you either spend it or you don't.

You could however spend right back to the same address however as others pointed out that would make the public key known and in theory if ECDSA was weakened or degraded could allow the private key to be compromised in the future.

The better option would be to sign a message with the private key and use a third party implementation (like say QT client) to verify that signature.  If the signature is valid then the relationship between your private key and public address are valid.

Is it confirmed?  Tx below 5430 satoshis are not invalid that is incorrect.  They are however non-standard and as such miners will not include them in blocks by default and nodes will not relay them by default.

It "can" be done, anything can be done.  The rules of the network are enforced by the client anyone can make any change they want to the network.  A miner could decide to make the block reward 1 million coins per block.  Technically it is brain dead easy to make these kinds of changes.  Change a couple lines of code, compile, and distribute.

You would create a fork of the network.  The real question is can you convince anyone to use this (or any other controversial change)?  My belief is no, or not is a large enough numbers to create a critical mass.  However nobody can stop anyone else from doing it, and it certainly "can" be done.  So those who want to do it, just go ahead and do it.  See how many people use this "gox-coin".

Are these existing domains or new domain registrations?

If it is the later why not just use namecheap (they accept bitcoin deposits).
If it is the former use BitSimple to sell coins, withdraw to your PayPal account and pay for it that way (go daddy accepts PayPal).

If it is a large amount (expensive domain) and it needs a CC I am sure I can help you out but I am traveling today so if you don't find anyone else trusted drop me a PM this evening.

Then I will stick with you are misinterpreting a statement and they never said what you claim they did.

There is absolutely no reason to change wallets "often".  Addresses shouldn't be reused but that is different from what you claimed they said.

Please provide a cite because most likely you are misinterpreting a statement.

Two hots makes no difference in the current (and thus magnetic field  and thus reported current).  Two hots increases the voltage.  The two 120V hots are out of phase so there is 240V potential between hots and 120V between either hot and the ground.

The problem with the OP is that it ignores factual reality.  MtGox is in bankruptcy (protection), it can't leave that status until the courts agree.   Naming a couple hundred thousand (mostly unaccredited) shareholders to a private company isn't legal in Japan (or most places) and the courts are going to sign off an an illegal re-organization.