WTF? I don't have any sense of entitlement. This test is bogus. But just in case, let's take a look at these alleged symptoms...

I don't.

I have such fantasies (who doesn't?) but I'm certainly not "preoccupied" with them.

I am special and unique.

I require nothing.

WTF? Of course I expect automatic compliance with my expectations. That's a fucking tautology! If I don't expect something to be complied with, it's not an expectation, is it?

Nope.

I'm beginning to feel insulted. I'm not unwilling, I'm unable. Would you tell a guy in a wheelchair they're just unwilling to walk? Guess I'm not the only one who lacks empathy.

People are envious of me, but I try not to let it get me down.

Not regularly. Only on special occassions.

That's only four out of five, and most of those are bullshit anyway. I'm not narcissistic.

It's not their website they're expecting you to ogle.

It's funnier to read it as a typo for "Grillboy". Sounds like a brand of barbecue.

Not sure if trolling, but just in case...

What do you mean by "manage" them? You create an address, tell your customer or whoever to send money to it, check that you've received said money, and then forget about it. I myself have hundreds of addresses (I don't even know the exact number, nor do I need to) and I haven't been inconvenienced by it.

Everyone can do that; it's just not a good idea.

I have a hard time imagining that, since generating a million addresses in 57 years would mean 48 new addresses per day. Who do you know who makes that many transactions per day? And what's the problem with having a million addresses in the first place?

I don't think the word "limit" means what you think it means.

A timing sidechannel attack requires that the attacker have access to your computer's memory, in which case you're generally already screwed.

What's so silly about that?

Then there's no problem.

Are you serious? I just explained that. Bitcoin is not a bank, is nothing like a bank, and banking isn't the point of it. It is not an alternative to the banking system, it can't deliver that, and it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with what it actually is. It's a payment network, like SWIFT or Western Union. It's not a bank, and Bitcoin addresses aren't like bank accounts and aren't meant to be.

The most basic risk is that anyone who knows an address can see all transactions involving that address. In your example of receiving money from sales, this means that your customers can see how much money other customers are paying. Combined with knowledge of the prices of the goods you're selling, they'll be able to tell exactly what you're selling and when, whether other customers are getting discounts, and, if your customers also reuse addresses, they'll be able to tell who your repeat customers are and what they're buying. Aside from the massive violation of your own and your customers' privacy, this information could be used by unscrupulous customers to try to negotiate lower prices, or by your competitors to undercut you, etc. Using a different address for each order mitigates this problem.

The more practical problem is that using a different address for each order makes it easier to track which payments are for which orders. Say two people have ordered something for the same price, but you only receive one payment for that amount. Which one of them paid? If you used different addresses, you just look at which address received the payment. Simple.

It shouldn't be, and in any competently designed wallet this isn't the problem. That doesn't mean there aren't more fundamental problems.

No it isn't. If you want a bank, you know where to find one. Bitcoin is an international payment network. Bitcoin addresses are meant to facilitate transactions, not storing money. Obviously storing money is a prerequisite to transacting it, but that is not the whole point of Bitcoin addresses, which do not behave like bank accounts because they serve a completely different function.

To elaborate, systems that assume Unix timestamps are always sequential will be mistaken about the ordering of events that take place during a leap second and the following second, since the two seconds are indistinguishable from the timestamps. For example, an event which occurs at 11:59:60.8 PM will have a later timestamp than an event that takes places half a second later at 12:00:00.3 AM, since 11:59:60 PM and 12:00:00 AM are the same in Unix time. (And some systems, when dealing with human-readable time formats, will give an error on seeing the 60.8 seconds, since such a timestamp is "obviously" invalid.)

Bitcoin has none of these problems. It does not use timestamps to determine the ordering of events, with out-of-order timestamps being perfectly valid, and a single second will not make any appreciable difference to the block interval.

Impossible. You can't hide something that big, or if you can, it would require far more competence than the government is known for.

They already have. Remember the Roswell crash? It's since been revealed that it was a top-secret high-altitude balloon for observing Soviet nuclear tests, but for obvious reasons the government couldn't admit that at the time, so they made up the UFO story as a cover-up (or the media made it up and the government just went along with it, which amounts to the same thing in the end).

You do realise that shampoo is designed to dissolve oil-based compounds (of which plastic is one example), right? That's how it cleans your hair. At the risk of stating the obvious, neither your hair nor your scalp is made of plastic. Shampoo is not very acidic, either. Why would it be? Strong acids are generally not very good at dissolving oil. They do damage your skin, of course, which is why I am puzzled by the people who eschew shampoo in favour of vinegar, which is about 1,000 times more acidic. Must be the old "if it's natural it must be harmless" logic.

If they're using Tor just to hide their IP address, then yes, because that's not Tor is for. The IP address itself is irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. However, someone with full access to your network connection (your ISP, the NSA, etc) can see if you sent a transaction that you didn't already receive from another peer, which proves that transaction is yours and you're not relaying someone else's transaction. Tor protects against this, and this is the reason people (should) use Tor. IP addresses have nothing to do with it.

200GB of hard disk space costs about $10, making it the cheapest upgrade you can possibly get. Though if your system is so cheap that 200GB of hard disk space actually counts as an upgrade, one has to wonder how you ever managed to run a full node on it in the first place.

Thank you for reminding me that there are still a few sane individuals on this forum.

No, it's applicable only to financial institutions that do business with US citizens/residents. Which means said institutions now have to ask every single customer whether they are one.

It's also a corporation registered in Australia, mainly so that contractors who do business with the government will have a legal entity to put on the contract. The conspiracy theory you linked to is both crazy and nonsensical.

Who said anything about sex? The song doesn't actually explain anything more than "boys pee with this and girls pee with that". Of all the ways children could learn that (and they are going to before they finish kindergarten, one way or another), I think this song is probably the best.

We already have a thread about this here.

Never step in front of a jet engine if you don't want to be buried in a mop bucket.

It shouldn't. The vulnerability is in the gethostby­name() function, specifically that if it is given an IP address instead of a domain name, it just returns the IP address itself (which is reasonable) with no bounds checking on the length of the IP address (they're always less than 16 characters, right?), leading to a buffer overflow if it is given a bogus IP address containing impossibly large numbers (whoops). This function is obsolete, replaced by getaddrinfo(), which has no such vulnerability, and as far as I can tell Bitcoin doesn't use the vulnerable function.

Since she specifically wants to stab you, I'd suggest the buttocks. It's pretty much the only place you can receive a wound of any depth at all without much chance of hitting any major blood vessels or organs. Of course, the resulting muscle damage will leave you physically unable to stand without support and you'll probably need a wheelchair to get around for the next month or so, but you just said you don't want to kill yourself; you didn't say nothing about crippling injury.

(A better suggestion would be to not do this at all, but some people just have to learn things the hard way. )

I don't know, but if it has an atomic number of 247 and an atomic weight of only 300, you should run away from it very fast.

No, it's not all our fault. It's all your fault. What were you thinking putting your life savings into something a market cap of only $5 billion? You fucked it up yourself, and until you take some responsibility for your decisions instead of blaming unrelated people, you'll just keep on fucking up until you've lost everything.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.