You are arguing that your coin is not a clone, yet all you present to us are just minor tweaks. By that logic, no coin is a clone and every single altcoin is an "innovative, new coin."

This is not well thought out at all, scam or not. If you were really interested in earning money by shooting amateur pornographic videos, then you can do that just by filming with any half-decent camera/webcam/cellphone and posting it on any adult video website with an affiliate program. Lots of people are doing that and are earning more than you ever would asking for an undeserved loan. In fact, if you had done that first, you would have already earned enough from a low quality 5-minute amateur video to buy the camera that you're thinking of renting.

Collateral is something that the lender can sell or trade in order to get his/her money back in case the borrower decides to default on his/her loan. That's what everyone is asking for and what you obviously do not have. Also, your account containing $57K is just a scam that you fell for, so please stop insulting everyone's intelligence by continually posting about it just because your pride won't allow you to accept the fact that you were duped by a clearly obvious scam.

You can't merge mine Quark with Bitcoin because they employ different hashing algorithms. Quark can only be made to merge mine with other Quark-based coins. However, there is very little benefit to merge mining with a coin with a lower network hashrate, while merge mining with a coin with a higher network hashrate would most likely elevate a competing Quark clone.

Using our private keys on a newly forked wallet exposes us to a lot of risk for very little reward. I prefer being able to claim my Clams by verifying a message digitally signed with my BTC/LTC/DOGE address and not by importing the private key itself. Would the dev team be willing to implement such a change?

Mazacoin is supposed to be a "sovereign currency" anyway, so what does it matter? If it is true that the Lakota Indians approve of and support Mazacoin, then let them secure the blockchain and trade the coin among themselves. Why would the coin need to be approved by non-Lakota Indians for the actual Lakota Indians to start using them? That thinking seems to run contrary to what the goal supposedly was. If the fear is that malicious third parties may drive the value of the coin down if they are not appeased, then that should have been considered before it was heavily promoted to people who are primarily interested in making a profit from pumping and dumping coins.

There is no best exchange. One exchange may be better than another in one aspect, but not in another. Personally, I find Mintpal and Poloniex to be well above other exchanges in terms of trustworthiness, quality of service and support, deposit and withdrawal confirmation speed, transaction speed, and selection of coins. Cryptsy is extremely unreliable when you want to make quick transactions, so it is only useful as a backup exchange for next-day trades. Most of the other exchanges either suffer from low volumes of coins or lack of trust in the community, if not both.

I would say that those are bold statements for just another fork of Bitcoin, and premined at that. What is it exactly about your coin that makes it much more secure and much more transparent than Bitcoin? From what I can tell, it doesn't even have a blockchain explorer.

Myspace is not designed to be used as a currency though. Its users can migrate to another social networking site like Facebook without feeling an ounce of regret. Bitcoin users can't do that without incurring a potential financial loss. You see, Bitcoin's advantage is not that of "first mover," but rather being the core around which all currently existing cryptocurrencies revolve around.

If you're asking if you should create a new paper wallet after every transaction, then that depends on what you want to do. Some people prefer to be anonymous concerning their transactions and/or balance, so they use a unique address per transaction. That way, no single transaction can be linked to another, helping maintain their relative anonymity. Some casual users who don't care just reuse the same address. I recommend that you create a new paper wallet containing a new key pairing if you feel that it is worth your time to do so. But if you feel that your current paper wallet is adequately secure and anonymous for most intents and purposes, then you can simply reuse the same paper wallet without worry. Just make sure that you don't lose it.

As long as Bitcoin is not universally accepted as a currency and people keep trading Bitcoin as a commodity, it will continue to remain volatile. A mainstream entity publicly investing in Bitcoin can easily cause a bubble, while all it takes for a crash to happen is one Bitcoin investor holding a large amount of it suddenly cashing out. There's also the ongoing struggle to gain official government recognition and mass public adoption. Future halvings, DPR's seized funds getting dumped onto the market, Mt. Gox miraculously recovering another cold storage wallet when Karpeles runs out of money to pay for his lawyers' retainer fees, et cetera -- a lot of things can and will shake the Bitcoin market. Bitcoin is volatile -- that's just a given.

Assuming that you have less than 100 Ghs of SHA256 hashing power, then that is correct. Mining BTC with a lower hashrate than that is generally not profitable compared to mining any trending Scrypt-based coin with a decent GPU. Having said that, if you have neither Scrypt ASICs nor the intention to purchase any in the future, then you should consider mining Scrypt-N-based and x11-based altcoins as well.

You are not allowed to have more than one account.

From their FAQ:

Pools do not know what your actual hashrate is. The pool software dynamically calculates your hashrate from the average number of shares that the pool receives from your worker. If a pool is showing a lower hashrate, then wait a few more hours and your average should adjust accordingly as the pool receives more shares from your worker.

The coins being sent were only in the sending address for less than an hour, so its priority was very low. I believe that dust transactions have very low priority to begin with anyway.

Eligius and BTCGuild are, from my experience, currently the 2 most efficient and stable BTC mining pools.

As for your domain name, it is corny and unrelated to cryptocurrencies other than having the word "hash" in it. Any random person could simply make a new domain name prefixed with "hash" and get it cheaper. It also expires in less than 6 months and has never had any traffic. What you call great, most of us would call random online junk.

Contact Comkort Support and address the issue to them. I believe they took down their Diem wallet as early as yesterday though (and posted an accompanying notice), so that might be a problem if you sent those coins only after that happened. In any case, Comkort Support should be able to help you ascertain the status of those coins that you recently sent.

With only about 10 Ghs of mining power, I would suggest mining another SHA256 coin with lower difficulty instead. Depending on the volatility of the coin that you choose, you might earn only slightly less than what you would earn from mining Bitcoin. The main difference would be that you would reach the payout threshold more easily for whatever that coin is than you would for Bitcoin. But if you don't mind leaving your ASICs hashing 24-7 until you mine enough Bitcoins to withdraw, then BTCGuild is a good pool to mine with. It offers merged mining with Namecoins, which is a nice bonus, since it allows you to diversify to a second coin.

The Bitcoin protocol is open source technology that was created with the rationale that any potential problems would be dealt with as hardware and software continue to evolve. The collision dilemma is one that has been discussed by people in the community many times before -- and still -- but the prevailing argument is that it will be relatively far in the future before collisions start becoming a major problem, and that it will have been solved before we come remotely close to that point in time. While that point may be debatable depending on one's personal perspective, the truth is that anyone saying differently yet also committed to making Bitcoin work can simply find a solution on his/her own, rendering the prophecy self-fulfilling.

As for "preventing collisions," that is impossible without completely rewriting the Bitcoin protocol. There are a lot of existing Bitcoin wallets, all open source and all easily modifiable. Meanwhile, the number of Bitcoin addresses is finite and their generation is a deterministic process. It's just one of those things when dealing with open source -- the best we could is to work around it, not against it.

It is not necessary to confirm if your Bitcoin address currently has an owner. The chances of a collision of addresses occurring, though continually growing, is still very minute. However, you can always do as you suggested if it will ease your mind. Nothing is wrong with being doubly sure when it comes to security.

Let me tell you why I personally think that checking if a randomly generated address is redundant though, just to give you an added perspective. Theoretically, if collisions on Bitcoin addresses are already occurring at this very moment, then it will be much more frequent as time goes on, and checking the address once would be meaningless since it could just as easily be randomly assigned to another person after you had already transferred your funds into it.

Also, an address with no transactions linked to it could theoretically still be owned by someone who has simply not used it yet. For example, Electrum generates at least 5 addresses when you open it for the first time. A casual Bitcoin user can use just a couple of those but still retain access to the unused addresses.