There was a bug in the difficulty display in some previous versions.  The actual difficulty was always right, but it was reported incorrectly.  This has been fixed in recent versions.  Update your nodes, and if you mine for a pool showing 1779163, pester the pool operator to update his.

Fekete should know better.  Sprott didn't make anyone pay a premium, the market did.  Sprott has no control over how the shares are valued on the secondary market.  PSLV has unique features, and the market apparently valued those features at around $11.73.

According to my theory, the answer is yes.  I don't know how much time or money I'd be willing to bet on the correctness of my theory, but I do know that perception is powerful stuff, even when logic says that perception is wrong.

Emailing you probably seems a lot less anonymous now than it did when they were filling out the survey.  Not to get into value judgments over pornography, but with a website, you are telling a machine that you like pornography.  With email, you are telling a person that you are a perv.

Are you joking?

I see this argument very often.  It is wrong.

Global currency markets are very, very liquid.  The value of the dollar comes from people wanting to hold dollars, not spend them.  Most oil bourses are priced in dollars, and settlement usually happens in dollars, but that doesn't increase net demand for dollars.  If the buyer doesn't have dollars, they sell whatever they have into Forex to get dollars, and if the seller doesn't want to hold dollars, they turn around and sell the dollars into Forex.  The net effect is zero.  If the buyer already had dollars, or if the seller wants to hold them, that represents a net change in the desire to hold dollars, which is independent of the oil transaction.

Prosecutors aren't involved in torts.  Prosecutors go after crimes.  In this case, the crime is felony grand theft.  In many places, the prosecutor must prosecute felonies, by statue, whether or not the victim agrees, or they risk going to prison themselves.

Ha!  Humans haven't traded directly on any market since the 80s.

It really doesn't matter what legal gibberish you can spout or what your briefs say, any judge is simply going to look at it, not understand any of it, and tell you that he totally understands intangible property, and he knows what "interest" means, and that even though you were an involuntary bailee, with only the crudest and most basic standard of care for your possession, you've somehow managed to reach a level best described as "malice aforethought", and that he really needs the bailiff to escort you back to booking so that you can be processed pending your transfer from county jail to state prison.  You may think you're a legal expert, but it turns out that courts don't give a fuck what the dispute is about, they only care about the actions of the parties involved.

Fixed and inverted that for ya.

If you doubt this outcome, go hang out in district court for a while.  Keep track of the number of cases that correspond to fiat money and physical property vs. intangible property and interests in same.

All the court has to do is continue to recognize the existence of an ownership interest in an intangible property, something they've been doing for literally thousands of years.  The only way this could set a precedent is if they decided that the entire history of jurisprudence from the dawn of history until now was wrong.

This case has the potential to silence a bunch of fools on the internet, but is otherwise totally mundane and ordinary.

I would say no.

In this case, I would argue that he never had possession, and thus never had an opportunity to return them to the rightful owner.  By statute, and by common sense, in this case the theft wasn't the reception of the coins, but the willful failure to return them.

On the other hand, if they ever moved in the future, I would expect the defendant to end up back in court for theft, and possibly perjury.  No problem with the statute of limitations, because again, the crime happens when the defendant has an opportunity to return them, but fails to do so.

Yup, Doctor House expressed this wonderfully in an episode.



Actually, radioactive decay has a very certain and well understood cause.  Unfortunately, that cause is a quantum effect, so we can't predict it.  And if all of the experiments into J.S. Bell's theorem are right (and they certainly appear to be), we won't ever be able to predict it.  It isn't just that we don't know about the internal wheels and gears inside the particles, it really appears to be that there really aren't any.

At any rate, this isn't the right discussion to be having.  The bitcoin market is chaotic, not stochastic.  Actually, markets in general are chaotic.  Chaotic phenomena are totally deterministic, in principle, but never predictable.

I love internet lawyers.

1.  Irrelevant.  A bicycle is also not recognized as legal tender anywhere, but there are plenty of people in prison for stealing them.
2.  It became theft when they weren't returned.  You don't like the bank error analogy, so try a warehouse.  They give you the wrong parcel, you sell it instead of giving it back.  You go to prison.
3.  Nonsense from start to finish.  The exchange of data is a token to memorialize the transfer of the ownership interest in the intangible property.  That ownership interest has a very real value, and the markets are very, very liquid, so the value is quite certain.  Do you think your house has no value because it isn't at this moment undergoing a sale?
4.  Nonsense, covered in point 3.
5.  The state has an interest in prosecuting felony grand theft, even when the victim is a foreigner.  If you hire a hitman to kill someone overseas, don't imagine that you won't end up in prison because the target doesn't live in your country.

The laughing will go the other way.  Ask a lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.

It came damn close to passing $1900 today.

At this point, we aren't really after end users.  I mean sorta.  We like it when they come along.  In the long run, we need them.  But the reason we cast our net today is because we are looking for the types of people that can help build the other stuff, and as the stuff gets built, the end users will show up.

This isn't really literal, of course.  We aren't actually recruiting anyone.  But we are telling anyone that wanders past that this thing is cool, and we are hoping that some will stay, and that some of those that stay will turn out to be builders.

Hmm.  A policy.  That is a damn good idea.

A TXT record in DNS for the domain.


Then your mail client (or any server along the way) can say "this email claims to be from flexcoin.com.  flexcoin.com has a published policy that says they will never include links in their emails.  This email has a link in it.  Delete.  Notify spamcop, spamhaus and spamfrauline.  Block the source IP".

U could even be server and path, so that mails from your domain can only contain links that go back to places that you want them to go to.  Maybe have another field to act as a filter for attachments.

I wonder if we could get it implemented.

If you can figure out how to write a website in PHP, you can also figure out how to use the API on your favorite exchange to instantly sell them.  Yes, I know you would need to park a few coins at the exchange, but that would be the limit of your currency risk, which works out to zero per transaction over time.

Right, but that means that the full block must exist somewhere so the node can download it and verify it.  So while any node can prune, not every node can prune.

Sorta.  More like "serious faith that they are superior by virtue of not having the sort of faith that losers and fools have".

The next time you see a debate about religion in person, watch the alleged atheist carefully.  I'll bet a dollar that he doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.  He probably hasn't ever had a serious thought on the subject, so he isn't expressing that he has considered religion and rejected it.  What he is really expressing is a desire to be seen as the sort of person that rejects religion, because rejecting religion is cool, and he wants to be cool.

I know some actual atheists, people that have put serious thought into the matter.  In general, they know more about theology than I do.  I have a lot of respect for these people.

But for every one of them, I've seen a dozen douchebags in bars that wear designer clothes because they want to be seen as the sort of guy that wears designer clothes, and they talk shit about religion because they want to be seen as the sort of guy that talks shit about religion.  They regurgitate talking points that would insult the intelligence of a bright six year old because for them it isn't about thinking, or debating, it is about saying things that are congruent with the image they want to project.

I hope that clears things up.

Yeah, if you are new to regex, you shouldn't be trying to parse general HTML with it, but you can generally get away with parsing specific HTML from a given site.  Or, you know, use any of the many tools that will parse HTML for you and give you a nested object with all of the elements, tags and attributes.

If your opponent is actively trying to deny you, you might need to also parse javascript, or even write a javascript simulator.  You might also need to break CAPTCHAs, which isn't hard, because if they get too difficult, they start acting in reverse, where getting it wrong suggests a higher probability that the user is human and getting it right suggests a computer.

Doing it with time or fees actually backfires, because it just means that the spread will be wider and the market less liquid.

I have no objection to fees to account for the load on the servers, or to gently discourage certain practices that lead to excessive loads.  But in general, the people that are against bots are either fighting the wrong thing (they think the depths charts are meaningful), or they are pushing for the wrong solution (they couldn't log in because some server was over loaded).