It seems that your attacker deposited 0.7BTC to whatever service owns this wallet.

There was a WSJ editorial about this very issue a couple weeks ago.

Anyone who evades Iran sanctions imposed by the US could be subject to sanctions themselves. So people would need to choose between trading with Iran or with trading with the US. The answer should be easy.

Some European governments are apparently considering to use their central banks to evade sanctions with the assumptions that the US will not subject the central banks to sanctions because of the damage this will do. The author suggested that directors and employees of the central bank could be sanctioned as an alternative to sanctioning the central bank itself.

Are you willing to accept a signed message that says “this is [user name] from CL and I would like the proceeds from my settlement sent to [address]” (or something similar but still specific)

The above is specific enough to not be vulnerable to a MITM and should allow for situations in which users no longer have access to old email addresses.

Early this year, we bounced strongly off of $6k, nearly doubling in just under a month.

Although we broke though the same level, we bounced off of levels that were only a few percent below $6k twice (both with >8% bounces), creating what may very well be a double bottom. Neither bounce has had the volume that we saw earlier this year, but it does look like we have seen short term lows.

Iran is the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorist organizations, and as a result of the US pulling out of the "Iran deal" there are sanctions against Iran.

The goal is to hurt Iran's government, and to over time make it easier for it's people to overthrow it. 

The average person will actually uses banks more for borrowing money than other major uses such as receiving (making deposits), and spending money (sending "quick pay" payments and writing checks).

Citizens can and do often use things like cash, money orders and similar to pay bills and send money to friends, while on the other hand, they have a hard time coming up with enough money to pay for things like houses, and cars with existing assets, and have few non-bank options to borrow money to pay for said things (both of which are essential for almost everyone to have in order to live and earn a living).

This is also how banks make the majority of their money. As a general rule, a checking account will make banks very little, if any money, while how much money banks earn in interest income verses the cost of money banks pay for what they lend out is a very closely watched indicator in banks' earnings reports.

It was originally predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970, however since that time, oil production has increased over decades, and the date the world would reach "peak oil" production has been delayed multiple times, only to be proven wrong.

Most of the world economy's growth has not been from consumption of resources, but has been from improvements in technology and additional efficiencies in processes.

Further, the ability to borrow against assets allows the economy to grow, as it allows citizens to utilize value without having to sell assets. (it barriers and costs of lending are too low, then bubbles will eventually form, causing bad things to happen).

Interest rates for what? bitcoin? I would expect the cost to borrow a deflationary asset to be very low, if not below zero because the cost to repay said asset will increase in real terms over the course of the loan.

You can see the average cost to borrow BTC on bitfinex here (data goes back to July 2013), and you can see the last 3 months of the cost to borrow BTC on bitfinex, poloinex and Quoine here.

You can also use prices on Bitmex futures to calculate effective BTC interest rates, although USD interest rates will also need to be considered. Futures prices more accurately reflect the difference between USD interest rates and BTC interest rates.

The above reflects interest rates for very well capitalized loans (with automatic liquidation upon the value of collateral falling too low), and is a baseline similar to how the prime rate is a baseline index for USD based consumer loans.

Consumer loans based on BTC generally have a higher spread over the index than USD based loans given by traditional banks because collecting on loans in the BTC economy is very difficult, loan amounts often too small to economically collect on loans, and most lenders lack the ability to effectively measure risks.

According to this post, “aTriz” gave a similar explanation via telegram. If you were to believe he sold his account then he would have included the telegram account with it. I just don’t see someone buying up multiple contact methods of a negative trusted account nor do I see it being worth anything.

Also, aTriz often came up with excuses have long delays in answering questions and was often scant on details in the alia saga. The same is true when someone came forward claiming to be the original owner when aTriz provided a undated signed message.

I would speculate that aTriz has not been transferred recently and that he (or someone close to him) controls a decent number of sock puppets. 

How many accounts do you have that you have similar arrangements on?

This could be done with Powerpoint-like software fairly easily once the content is created.

It would probably be beneficial to have Bitcoin-related history courses about scams, thefts and losses in Bitcoin's early days. This ideally would help people from falling into these same traps.

It might be a good idea to invest some of the forum's money into buying licenses of courses focused on teaching english, including english grammar. The benefits of this should be obvious, and completion of this course could be used as a way to reduce the duration of some bans.

It would be beneficial for adoption to have courses related to how to buy, store, and use Bitcoin from a consumer point of view. This course would go over everything from choosing an exchange to choosing wallet software to figuring out an appropriate fee to pay while at a physical store.

I am generally opposed to "investment guides" as anyone who "invests" via cryptocurrency should have near-expert level of understanding of crypto, business, and how to perform due diligence and this expertise should be obtained from multiple sources and the accuracy of said information should be independently verified.

Out of curiosity, how would you not know if the reimbursement percentage is less than 100%? I would think you know how much crypto you have access to and the balances of deposits when CL failed. 

It looks like it was only for that specific link.

I would predict that bitcointalk will quickly get blacklisted if it is ever whitelisted because Wikipedia pages will quickly be filled with what amounts to advertising spam from bitcointalk links.

It sounds like aTriz really doesn’t care about the community and the damages of his actions.

IMO it shouldn’t be all that surprising considering who he was in business with.

I would argue, as the paper noted, that if miners were to perform any kind of large scale double spending attack, that Bitcoin would be largely worthless if the POW was not changed.

I would also point out that there is not (and never has been) a large scale rental market for miners, so an anon malicious user cannot simply rent a large portion of the mining network, they would need to actually buy (or create themselves) the underlying miners to perform this kind of attack.

The paper seemed to incorrectly assume that old, inefficient miners are available in unlimited quantities, which is not the case, especially at the below-cost-to-manufacture prices they will sell for. When a miner is no longer profitable, they will often be sold, and the manufacturer will not producing them (if they have not already), causing the prices of these miners to decline. When the new model of miners are manufactured in the same quantity, they will be able to "out mine" the prior class of miners.

If mining capacity is being rented out to a pool (via PPS), or a miner rental site, that is using said capacity in a way that is harmful to Bitcoin, the owner of those miners will move their capacity elsewhere in order to increase the chances of recovery of their "sunk costs" of their miners.

It is not possible for a LN "hub" to run on fractional reserve under the LN protocol as it exists now.

When a user opens a LN channel with a "hub" (or otherwise), the user will use an input worth "y", and the "hub" will use an input worth "x" to create a transaction that opens the channel (x and y may be equal, but they do not have to be), and the initial tentative closing transaction will be so that the user receives y and the hub receives x. It is not possible for the "hub" to get the user to reduce the value of their tentative closing transaction by a certain amount without the user agreeing to as much (and when acting economically rationally, without receiving a similar valued amount via other means). 

I would reject this logic.

A full node does nothing to confirm what the consensus rules are (other than the default rules the node software is "shipped" with that is input by the core devs), in fact I am not aware of any Bitcoin implementation that will tell others what specific rules it is following. Most Bitcoin nodes will broadcast the name of the implementation they are running, however this is far from what consensus rules they are following, and can be trivially changed.

What running a full node does do, is ensure you only accept transaction and blocks that follow the rules you choose. However the caveat is that if you are not following the same rules as the economic majority, your node will either accept transactions/blocks that are economically worthless, or will not receive blocks at all. If the major economic players got together and decided to accept transactions/blocks that meet a certain criteria that your node disagrees with, then your node will be doing exactly nothing.

Obviously anyone caught copy/paste spamming should be banned with almost no exceptions.

With the above being said, the current solution in which users are caught copy/paste spamming and are banned in akin to "wack-amole" and is not sustainable. The incentive to copy/paste spam (and otherwise make low effort posts) needs to be removed, while freedoms of "rule abiding" members needs to be maintained.

In an ideal environment, the risk of creating copy/paste posts will outweigh the potential rewards of doing so (the potential payout from bounty/signature deals), and thus, few enough few enough people will engage in this behavior, so much more effort can go into each investigation.

These spammers are getting more creative in hiding what they do, are likely using bots, and will only get more sophisticated over time. This problem is not unique to copy/paste spam, and is an issue in regards to all low effort posts.

I think I might be close to having a proposed solution, however I am still brainstorming.

This is something that should be looked into. The posts publicly available of inbizin that received merit from xandry appear to be reports of copy/paste spam. xandry seems to have given a lot of merit to users who have posed in what appears to be a thread to report copy/paste spam. So it may well be a case in which inbizin discovered how to get a lot of merit by making a very specific type of post.

People (largely though anon troll newbie accounts) have called for the tagging of everyone involved in any way of account sales for a long time, going back to 2015 or so. These same people have compared selling accounts to rape and murder, which is just ridiculous. This is just more evidence that hardliners against account sales are pointless to debate, act in bad faith, and are willing to ignore any community consensus, or lack thereof in regards to the underlying issue.

The fact remains that anyone who buys an accounts is, in effect, paying a bounty in the form of the price of their account that they will not engage in behavior that will result in them getting banned, nor that they will attempt to actually scam anyone (as in steal money, or attempt to steal money) because doing so will result in the account they paid for becoming worthless, or nearly worthless.

Ignoring all of the above, I generally do not like telling other people what kind of transactions they can and cannot take part of, when all parties to the transaction are fully understanding of the consequences of the transaction. Attempts to regulate these kinds of transactions is nothing more than a power grab.

How are you planning on signing a message? The last time you posted something implying you didn’t buy your account you presented a message that looking back that makes me believe you don’t control the private key to the address associated with the original owner.