The website screenshots suggest an interesting possibility.

In china, it's illegal to price goods and services in bitcoin as a unit of account.

The hash that was valid versus the target would have been of a block header that reflects paying the pool's coinbase tx. Changing the coinbase would hash to something completely random and different.

I feel like this is very comparable to the reality that Gox was the US government's fault, because so many extremely reputable startups have been bending over backward to comply with everything yet still getting nowhere when it comes to getting permission.

How about you first explain what the purpose of withholding blocks was?

What would be the incentive of actually running a block-withholding attack, when all it actually does is reduce the profitability of having run that hashing power in the first place?

Is it sufficiently-compelling to hash at a loss simply to reduce the payouts of other participants?

This is the just the retracement from the triple top around June 3rd playing out, nothing too exciting going on.

Going to a notary public with a contract that they prepared is equally stateless in every conceivable way. The blockchain quo blockchain is not relevant at all to what makes this exercise stateless.

This procedure is only really as valid as the preponderance of people who at least vaguely understand the legitimacy of publicly uploading a hash digest of a document to the blockchain. There is no legal precedent that I'm aware of that in any way recognizes this kind of notary, but then again this being an experiment in statelessness, I guess it doesn't matter, at this point this is kind of a "are you allowed to swear alone in the woods" situation!

"Ante-" and "anti-" are completely different prefixes that mean completely different things.

The fake professor needs to go back to his bread and butter making up meaningless stuff about China volume, this cryptography stuff is simply outside of his wheelhouse.

After your first transaction, they assign you a code that you enter into the website for all subsequent transactions. Which seriously calls into question whether this is a viable mixing solution, because that internal code becomes a perfect indicator of taint for anybody who access to their system. If anything, this is even worse than not mixing at all, because totally unrelated addresses that have never contributed outputs to the same tx can be associated by anyone who has access to their records concerning that code.

I would not recommend ever using a service like this whatsoever when there are excellent trustless mixing services available, for example the mixing integrated right into Blockchain.

The reason that luck is not zero sum is that producing a valid block is a statistically-independent event for every single individual candidate block hash. It doesn't matter who else is solving what (with the exception of an orphan race / whether or not you're mining the main consensus chain), the expected number of blocks solved by a given pool in a given timeframe is purely a function of difficulty/target and the number of hashes per unit time that pool produces.

No, this is the exact opposite of deflation.

Setting lower (or negative) interest rates increases the money supply.

What I would recommend to the OP is just look into the problem that Bitcoin is designed to solve in the first place. Read the Satoshi whitepaper. Then go back and re-evaluate whether the original question makes any sense whatsoever in the first place.

There might be something vaguely similar but unrelated to the idea of the Fed actually launching a coin, but that would be central banks and/or other depository institutions actually holding Bitcoin as assets on their balance sheets, but that's a totally different thing and quite far into the future if at all.

If you actually have a "team of lawyers and accountants" and all that jazz, then I would suggest actually hiring someone to do a logo instead of holding a weird abusive totally bush-league non-contest on a forum.

If necessary, people would just re-invent the concept denominated in millis or micros.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for them to have a satoshi-style system. Being a centralized third-party issuer that controls access, they experience none of the inherent problems that a cryptocurrency was conceived to solve in the first place. A "Fedcoin" wouldn't be a cryptocurrency, it would be a database.

Both are in play at the same time.

Does Black Arrow have assets in Hong Kong or otherwise outside of mainland China that we can go after legally?

Because obviously Bitcoin is the only asset in the entire world where automated systems perform trades.