Um, isn't pain kind of the point of that activity? Or have I been doing it wrong this whole time?

Actually, it is three questions:

My crazy theory? Or is it someone else's crazy theory that the minddrones implanted into my brain?
My crazy theory? Answer is almost always "Yes, your theory is crazy", except where the question is asked ironically.
My crazy theory? No, the correct term is hypothesis.

So what he really wants to know is, "Are the minddrones implanting theories or hypotheses into my brain and are they crazy?" Though when you put it like that, the question sort of answers itself.

You seem to have misplaced a decimal point.

What, you expect us to say what we're going to do before we do it? That's stupid. It's more fun to wait and say what we did after everyone else starts panicking, that way we get to watch them get angry at us. It's hilarious.

The fact is that many miners are producing 250kB blocks, and this is the behaviour of the Satoshi client. If many miners are using clients that function substantially differently, we would not be seeing so many 250kB blocks. Whatever modifications they have made, they still seem to be following the same fee rules.

True, there's nothing special about the 250kB limit other than that's the threshold imposed by the Satoshi client. I never said it was a good idea, and in fact I think it's particularly absurd that the minimum fee suddenly jumps to more than double once the threshold is hit and then increases gradually from there, but that's for the miners to decide. If they don't like it, they're free to modify the fee rules in any way they choose.

Not necessarily. A number of parameters regarding the fee rules can be set from bitcoin.conf. In any case, modifying the code and recompiling is not at all difficult.

It appears that way, yes. I expect that as the block subsidy drops, it will eventually stop making sense to scale transaction fees with the block size.

Click the WTF? link at the top-right corner.

You misunderstand how fees work with regard to large blocks. The minimum fee is not fine. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules, only the first 250kB of a block is available for transactions paying the minimum fee (which is why we're seeing so many 250kB blocks). The Satohsi client will create larger blocks if and only if there are transactions paying more than double the minimum fee. This is due to the fact that large blocks take longer to propagate, resulting in an increased risk of the block being orphaned. Higher fees must be paid to compensate for this increased risk.

You mean DURING, not AFTER. DURING a crash is exactly when to buy, and DURING a meteoric rise is exactly when to sell. That's why I sold at $857. Easy money.

This is way Bitcoin was always meant to work: more fees = faster confirmations; less fees = slower confirmations. At first, when transaction volume was lower, it didn't work that way; most or all transactions were confirmed quickly regardless of fees, and apparently some people were fooled into thinking that was normal, and now that the fee system is working properly, people are complaining that it's broken.

This can easily be fixed by adding an "Urgency" option to the Send Coins tab, allowing users to easily select between "Urgent" and "Not Urgent" transactions, and hopefully showing the expected fee and confirmation time for each option. Average users will easily accept that they can pay more fees to get faster transactions (they already do for things like postage), we just need to make that option more accessible.

The fees can be lowered if the price rises too high. They have already been lowered several times for exactly this reason, and there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

EDIT: Typo

To fix the issue, pay more fees. 250kB is the limit of how much of a block can be filled with transactions paying only the minimum fee (under the Satoshi client rules). Since this limit is being hit on a regular basis, transactions paying the minimum fee are forced to wait. To overcome this limit, a transaction must pay more than double the minimum fee - how much more depends on how large the block is; miners will not produce large blocks unless correspondingly large fees are paid (because large blocks are more likely to be orphaned, so large fees are demanded to compensate for this increased risk).

Transaction volume has reached the point where transaction fees have a significant effect on confirmation times. I recommend paying at least BTC0.00025 per kB to ensure fast confirmation. If transaction volume continues to increase, even higher fees may be required.

52. In addition to the 16 squares formed by the arrangement of the matches, the 36 individual matches are themselves squares when looked at end-on.

Miners using the Satoshi client will stop adding transactions to a block once the block hits 250kB, except for transactions paying more than double the minimum fee (how much more depends entirely on how full the block is), under the theory that larger blocks take longer to broadcast, and therefore have a higher chance of being orphaned, and so extra fees are required to compensate for this. Remember, the minimum fee is just that: the minimum. Pay more fees if you want faster confirmations.

No. Bit Trade Australia's limit is $7,500 per customer per day, regardless of your history (cash only, EFT not accepted).

Right. We may remain anonymous, if we so choose and are willing to put in the effort. Ain't nothing in the design that says we will remain anonymous, or that remaining anonymous would be easy.

Explain how.

Uncle Sam can kiss my wagger. It turns out that the world is, in fact, bigger the U.S.

See above.

Running which bitcoin-qt on a terminal will tell you where it is (should be /usr/bin/bitcoin-qt, I think, unless you installed it somewhere else).

You're not understanding how proof-of-work works. In Bitcoin (or any Byzantine system), some nodes are good, and some nodes are bad (either malfunctioning or malicious), and you don't know which is which. Proof-of-work is one solution, in which it is assumed that the majority (51%) of computational power is held by good nodes, so in the event that two or more different nodes provide conflicting data, we go with whichever data set has the most work behind it.

The problem with requiring more than a majority is that it implies that the data set with the most work is not necessarily correct. It may be correct or it may not be, and there is not way to know. Say you have two conflicting blockchains, one with 50% more work than the other (and therefor represents 60% of the computational power of the network - more than 51%, but less than 66.67%). Is the chain with the most work the correct one and the other one a failed attack, or is the chain with the most work a failed 66.67% attack and the chain with the lesser work is correct? Which chain is correct? How do you know? This is the question you must answer in order to make your suggestion possible.

Well, on the one hand, I can solve my own problems so that other people don't have to. I'm sure they appreciate that. On the other hand, some people would prefer that I share the love. The solution to this dilemma is to use both hands simultaneously.

Oh, I see, so you envision a world in which everyone uses Amazon.com's wallet app. "The masses" may be stupid, but they're not so stupid that they'll use a wallet service that takes far longer than every other wallet service for their transactions to get confirmed.

How can my ass be both smart and ignorant at the same time?

Beware of what? Unlike you, I am not afraid of knowledge.

Blockchain.info is a web service, and is unrelated to the Bitcoin blockchain except in name. Maybe you need to well study it some more.

Damn. If only there was a way the originator of a transaction could directly connect to multiple mining pools of his own choosing and send his transaction to all of them simultaneously. Oh wait, there is a way: the way I just said.

And all I have to do is convince you that you're a dumbass and you'll stop posting bullshit, but I think we've both got our work cut out for us.