Right.

Wrong. You can only sell shares if there is a willing buyer for the shares you want to sell.

Remember that demand from buyers is what sets the price in the first place. If the price is going up, that means that people are willing to buy it for higher prices (in fact, that's the only thing it means).

You are ten dollars dumb. Or ten dollars smarter, depending on whether you learnt anything from this event.

That's not true. The other thing you can do with an address is see all transactions to and from that address. The worst that can happen is that someone could use this information to determine who you are, who's paying you, what they're paying you for, and what you're spending your money on. To help protect your privacy, it is recommended that you generate a new address each time you wish to receive coins from someone, and don't reuse the same address for multiple payments or publicly post your addresses unless you're aware of the privacy implications.

No. Finding a share does not in any way make it more or less likely that you will find a block, it just proves that you were working on it, so the pool rewards you on that basis.

He mustn't be quite as prepared as he thought. Power and communication are the main priorities after food and water. What kind of prepper doesn't keep a CB and/or ham radio, a generator, and a stockpile of batteries and fuel? And if you have any power source at all, a laptop with a wireless card will allow you to form an ad-hoc mesh network (though that only works if everyone else has the same plan).

Of course, if it's a global catastrophe, mining will a problem, since nobody's going to waste precious fuel keeping their mining rigs running, though if that's the case you're going to have bigger things to worry about than what you're going to use for money.

It's not a liquid!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5p9TVIm9o

What kind of idiot hires an advertising agency to code a cryptocurrency, a project that could potentially leave you liable for billions in losses if you screw it up, assuming it actually becomes successful, which it won't because there's no demand for yet another cryptocurrency, when you have no experience with such a project? Someone's not telling you the whole story.

The -BTC0.0001 is the transaction fee, which is the net debit to your balance. The gross debit (which I'm not sure if MultiBit has an option to show) is the transaction fee plus whatever amount you transferred, but since you transferred it to yourself, that amount is also in the credit column, so it balances out, leaving just the fee. Credit - debit = fee = -BTC0.0001 net.

Explain how this satisfies points 2 and 3.

No, we who never had children and instead uploaded our brains to immortal robot bodies are among the richest people on the planet.

One word: prenup. Anyone who won't agree to a prenup clearly doesn't respect your property rights, and if they don't respect your rights, then they don't respect you as a person, so why the fuck are you even marrying them?

You heard wrong. The complexity is to make it extremely difficult to make fraudulent changes to the transaction record. To do this, you need a function that has the following properties:
1) It must be very difficult to calculate a solution;
2) It must be very easy to verify that the solution has been calculated correctly; and, most relevantly,
3) It must not rely on any outside source of data that could be tampered with to either allow fraudulent solutions, or prevent valid solutions from being accepted.

You're absolutely right; without escrow or insurance, you would be screwed. If only there was some sort of system for enforcing justice, a "justice system" if you will, that you could turn to to punish those who have screwed you. But that would just be crazy.

Why can't it be both?

If you think you can make an insane amount of money mining, you probably made a mistake estimating your overhead expense (mostly the cost of electricity).

Yes.

Not really. The number of confirmation simply indicates the number of blocks that would have to re-mined in order to reverse a transaction (since each block includes a hash of the previous block, altering an early block invalidates all later blocks). The only practical difference is that for the first confirmation, miners can choose whether or not to include your transaction in the next block (they may refuse it if the fee is insufficient, for example), but once it's in a block (it has one confirmation), it will be additionally confirmed by all subsequent blocks (since miners can't simply decide to remove transactions from a previous block). This is why a transaction will sometimes take an extremely long time to get the first confirmation, then gain additional confirmations at the usual rate.

This is false. Encrypting a wallet deletes all unused addresses from the pool and generates new ones. This is to reduce the potential for theft if someone obtains the unencrypted wallet (and in fact that risk is eliminated entirely if, after encrypting the wallet, you send all your coins to a new address and never reuse your old addresses).

Yes, many altcoins are at extreme risk of a 51% attack due to both the small number of mining pools and low overall hashrate.

No, but it means that the pool can carry out a 51% attack immediately if the pool operator decides to do so, or the pool server is hacked. The security of the currency is entirely dependent on a single person. Something to think about if you're going to dabble in altcoins.

I wasted my prepubescence playing video games.

It is not possible for "neither" chain to win. A node always needs to be able to pull transaction data from the blockchain. That means if there are two blockchains, it must be able to pick one of them over the other. If this is impossible due to both chains being the same length, it picks whichever one it got first, and this is a Bad Thing (it makes double-spend attacks easier), though unavoidable. Sticking with the first received chain even after a longer chain is found only makes the problem much worse than it needs to be.