You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

The negative trust is about as ridiculous as the notion that anyone who is familiar with Vod will take his opinions seriously.

This is one more example as to why the trust system has become worthless, along with the fact that the admins will not step in to address a situation in which there is very clearly no trade dispute, nor any attempt/plan to steal money/property from others.  

The world is not flat, and there is substantial evidence to back it up. The appropriate course of action would be to present said evidence, not attempt to silence the OP via a negative rating. And yes a negative rating is very much an attempt to silence the OP, especially in this case.

IDK, maybe the fact that news outlets with a heavy left leaning bias, such as the New York Times, the Washington post, and NBC news declined to run the story because of a lack of corroboration.

The New Yorker story is based on hearsay from unnamed source (singular), and multiple people who would have knowledge of the party are on the record saying it didn’t happen.

I would not take anything the creepy porn lawyer says seriously. If you are the victim of a crime, especially a serious crime, I would suggest not retaining his services because I won’t take any evidence seriously and will go into hearing your story as being made up for political purposes. 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is currently in a meeting at the White House with chief of staff General Kelly, immediately prior to which, he was expecting to be fired. There are reports that he was planning on Resigning with the details to be ironed out today.

All of this comes on the heels of a NY times article that says that former former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe had written memos saying that Rosenstein had discussed wearing a wire while speaking with President Trump and try to get Trumps cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment. Sources say that he did say this but in jest as pushback against McCabe.

---

Update: it appears this is fake news and Rosenstein is still deputy Attorney General. There is a meeting with Trump scheduled for this Thursday.

Both the Brexit vote and the 2016 US presidential election strongly contradict your assertions. Both of these votes went strongly against those in power, however they were both voted for and both are being implemented, although the former a little bit less than it should be.

I don't think it is necessarily best to rely on the "community" to ensure that each implementation of a bitcoin node is secure/safe to use.

Members of the community might have, at most a few million dollars worth of bitcoin of their own money at stake, but even if they make a mistake, they are unlikely to personally lose any money. On the other hand, there are several bitcoin related businesses that have billions of dollars worth of customer money, and hundreds of millions (and in some cases billions) of dollars of equity who have serious incentives to ensure these types of bugs don't pop up with software in production, and they have incentives to have fail-safes in place to prevent any actual losses if/when these types of bugs make it through the cracks.

I would point out that I am not aware of any major exchange "pausing" deposits and/or withdrawals immidiately after this bug was discovered, however anyone running the relevant software would have taken some time to stop deposits/withdrawals to upgrade their nodes (which would include reviewing the code). This leads me to believe that the majority of exchanges/businesses are running their own custom node software, maybe not exclusively, but this is at least part of what they are running. 

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

The truth is that everyone who the liar from CA has said was st the alleged party has denied having any memory of the party even happening. Her life long friend who was supposedly at the party says she doesn’t know Judge Kavanaugh and has never been at a party with him.

The truth is that the liar has changed the compensation of who was at the party at least two times.

The truth is that there is no evidence that the alleged incident took place and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

This is probably because bech32 addresses are not very widely used. AFAIK, electrum is the only wallet implementation that supports this address format, and no major exchanges/services support bech32

Kim Strassel of the WSJ editorial board is now reporting that a Washington Post "journalist" had reached out to Mr Judge, who was allegedly in the room with Kavanaugh saying that there were 3 boys and one girl at the party in question The Washington Post's story says there were four boys at the party.

Another issue is that there was someone allegedly at the party, Leland Ingham (now Keyser), who is a women who was one of Christine's classmates and close friends. She has said publicly that she does not know Kavanaugh, nor was she ever at any party that Kavanaugh attended. This means that everyone allegedly at the alleged party has denied the existence of the party, under penalty of perjury (or similar), except for Christine Beasley Ford, who appears to not want to speak under oath regarding the alleged incident.  

This comes down to one's central belief as to what 'Bitcoin" is.....is Bitcoin  a collection of consensus rules? Or is it a software maintained by a very small group of people?

If your argument is that Bitcoin is a software run by a small group of people (eg. those who decide what gets published every time there is an upgrade), then Bitcoin is much more centralized than most central banks.

This also comes down to another important question as to who exactly should be running a full node? It is my belief that businesses and those who are going to receive bitcoin prior to giving anything of value to their trading partners are those who should run a full node. Anyone who sends valuable property to someone prior to receiving bitcoin is already at risk of outright not receiving bitcoin in return, so the value of running a fully validating node is minimal. Further, it is the responsibility of those who are running a full node to personally ensure the software they are running is going to preform as they believe it will, and to not rely on third parties for this.

Presumably, the bots are advanced enough so that they can create their own email server and acknowledge these sign up confirmations.

Requiring email verification would likely result in normal users to have decreased privacy.

Exchanges generally do not advertise the details of their nodes, so an attacker would not know that a specific vulnerability affects xx exchange. Further, an exchange may build their own implementation that may be very similar to another implementation.

In regards to your sybil attack, businesses customize their node software to ensure that their nodes connect to multiple implementations, and if block information varies between multiple implementations, they would know to troubleshoot to figure out what is going on. I also suspect that most exchanges handling significant amounts of money are using multiple nodes using multiple implementations already.

Even if what you say is true, which as I mention above, I disagree with, this would only affect individual businesses, not the entire network. Today, businesses get hacked on a fairly regular basis, and confidence is generally not lost as a result of this.

Lol. Still a scam. Clever though.

To be fair it does sound like they are implying that buying these tokens will mean buying merit.

Maybe theymos will allow merit and sMerit to be held in an etherum address via an ERC20 contract.

I am weary of this assertion. Many bitcoin related businesses use custom implementations of Bitcoin that are based on the underlying consensus rules. The same is true for the miners today (even if they broadcast they are using other implementations), so I doubt a single malicious actor could have gotten counterfeit BTC more than a small number of confirmations.

I would echo what DooMAD said in that the solution is to encourage more implementations, and for each implementation to not have a high percentage of overall nodes.

At the end of the day, the Bitcoin network is nothing more than a bunch of consensus rules that everyone follows.  

The solution to this is simple, and it is that the blockchain (whose tip contains the most cumulative work) that follows all of the consensus rules is the Bitcoin blockchain, and any fork of this is not (in many cases, it would be an altcoin intentionally created).

The incentive to attack an implementation that is used by 10%-20% of the Bitcoin network is much smaller than the incentive to attack an implementation that affects 90% of the network. The further would be a minor hiccup, while the later has the potential to actually steal large amounts of money, and cause serious disruptions.

The maximum merit each account can send to another account is 50 merit per month. If someone is buying 100 merit, they are going to receive merit from at least two accounts (or it would get sent to at least two accounts), and it should be fairly obvious what is happening.

I think it is safe to say this is a scam. 

This is already addressed in the OP. This would cause security risks as you must trust the developer of the extension.

I would think this would be fairly trivial for theymos to implement.

Christine Ford has said that she isn’t sure when the incident happened although she believes it was in ‘82. This is what she says regardless of what Wikipedia says.

If Kavanaugh is tried, he would likely be tried as a minor, who sits on the Supreme Court (or the DC circuit court of appeals). Although there may be a scenario in which it is unclear that the juvenile court has jurisdiction if it can’t be proven he was a minor at the time, and the “adult” court may not have jurisdiction if it cannot be proven he was over 18.

Regardless of the above, he isn’t going to be investigated by the police because Christine hasn’t reported the alleged incident to the police. Without a police investigation he cannot be tried not charged. I believe the reason this hasn’t been reported is because Christine doesn’t want to be charged with filing a false police report (which is a similar reason she doesn’t want to testify).

If there was any truth to what Christine has claimed, she would have filed a police report immediately after she went public at the absolute latest. I disagree with Trump that she *would* have absolutely went to the police when this happened, however there is no longer any reason she would no longer go to the police today because the reasons people don’t go to the police after these types of incidents no longer apply.

I have read a report that Christine doesn’t want to fly from CA to DC to testify and therefore must make the drive. If this is true, it would only be one more piece of evidence that shows this was intended to move the vote past the midterms.

Your email will always be visible to you when you are logged in. From your account related settings there is a checkbox that says ‘Hide email address from public‘ and if that is checked your email is hidden from the public. If you report any posts, your email will be visible to any moderator with jurisdiction over that post.

You can check if your email is hidden by looking at your profile from another browser.

I haven’t witnessed this kind of behavior specifically, however I have seen neopotism in other ways among those in DT, namely giving positive trust to friends, and for things like “keeping the good fight”.