Sending coins to a forked chain doesn't give you a balance on that chain (with the notable exception of a fork that hasn't implemented replay protection, because then it gets messy, heh).  As far as BCD's network is concerned, no transaction has taken place.  It can't see those coins the OP has mistakenly sent.  So there's no possibility of duplicating them.  

The BTC chain, however, knows that the coins have been sent to an address format it recognises (again, assuming BCD didn't screw around with that).  So if you can retrieve the private keys to spend from that address, the BTC chain will treat it as a normal transaction.  

Is it a wallet you have control over?  Or is it an exchange or webwallet?  If it's a wallet you control, you need to export the correct private key from the BCD wallet you accidentally sent the funds to.  Then import that private key into a BTC wallet.  Assuming BCD haven't changed the relevant parts of the code in their fork, it should give you access to your coins again.

Numerous reasons:

• A protest against "too big to fail" banks and the current bailout culture
• Hedging against endless quantitative easing and money printing
• Privacy concerns over the increased surveillance of our spending habits
• Some have moved to Bitcoin out of necessity as their national currencies are collapsing
• Censorship resistance, so no one is able to block or reverse your payments
• Your personally identifiable information isn't required, so there's less risk of identify theft
• Freedom and independence, where you have full and total control over your money

All of these are things that should be plainly obvious by this point.  After nine years, you'd think people would have got the message by now.  Just because some short-sighted people are trying to use Bitcoin like a get-rich-quick scheme, doesn't mean it is one.

And the video clearly shows that was the Mt Gox exchange at the time.  Gox was indeed a heavily manipulated market.  That's well documented.  All this illustrates is that when too much centralisation occurs, things are easily corrupted.  The ecosystem has matured since then.  People don't just rely on a single large exchange anymore.  Also, this video speaks nothing of the true value of Bitcoin, which isn't purely about the price, as most people tend to mistakenly assume.

Yes, that requires a softfork.  But then so does Schnorr Sigs, so there will probably end up being a few new features bundled together in the next softfork, just to save having more than one.  The assumption is that this will be far less controversial than the previous softfork, as most of the would-be-opponents have forked away and care more about their other chains now.

Yep, since at least 2015 when they started debating that disgusting "snoopers' charter" in parliament and, in their total gormlessness, genuinely believed they were capable of banning all end-to-end encryption.  "Unsavvy" doesn't even begin to do it justice, heh.  They're utter fuckwits.  Suffice to say they didn't manage to include that part in the final draft.  Then, earlier this year, the High Court ruled they now have to rewrite most of the parts they did manage to include in that vile legislation anyway.  But in all their ignorance and stupidity, they didn't manage to cause any issues for Bitcoin whatsoever, so it's fair to assume the Aussies will have an equally unnoticeable impact if they follow down the same deluded path.

People seem to have different ideas about what scalability actually means and what compromises we should be prepared to make to accommodate it.  Some people believe that increasing on-chain throughput is the best solution, while others argue that isn't a solution at all because it places an increased burden on the nodes that support the network.  At the moment, we're compromising a little with the on-chain throughput, but also exploring the possibilities of off-chain transactions. 

Don't assume that nothing is being done or that things are being deliberately delayed.  That's a myth perpetuated by people who only want to see on-chain capacity increases without even considering other options that wouldn't adversely impact decentralisation. 

It's certainly not a simple fix, but rest assured that talented and determined developers are hard at work looking at all the potential ways forward.

Yeah, it's clearly a marketing ploy designed to give kids yet another reason to pester their parents to buy them chocolate, heh.  That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the tactic pays off and this food manufacturer see a sales uplift because of it.  But if it does raise even a little bit of awareness for the future generations, there's no harm in it.  Every kid needs to grow up knowing what Bitcoin is for when the time comes that traditional finance invariably fails them.

I hope when a country does inevitably pass a law like this, it bites them in the ass.  They won't get it right.  Let them find out the hard way that banning encryption has repercussions they haven't even envisioned yet.  They're basically just going to force the criminals to up their game and drive criminal behaviour even deeper underground where it's harder to trace than it already is.  You can't realistically ban an entire branch of mathematics, which is what encryption effectively boils down to.  It's just numbers.

As for what it means for BTC, I'm assuming (and hoping) not much.  The protocol certainly won't change because of it.  It would probably make exchanges even weaker than they currently are in terms of security, but at this point most exchanges are so bad that it won't even be that noticeable anyway.  If you do have to use exchanges, just ensure you use one based in a region that doesn't have this law.

You can view a complete list of the "factoids" here in case you weren't aware.  Not all of them are specifically about Bitcoin.

Then someone needs to update that page because it's outdated information.  Again, those keys are public now and the entire alert system is defunct due to security risks from potential DDoS attacks.  Anyone can access them from that linked post.  Having those keys and signing messages with them does not prove anything.  

Please edit the thread title as it may be misleading for newbies.  We sadly can't accept this as proof that Satoshi is alive.

Nope. The alert keys were publicly disclosed now that the alert system has been deprecated.  While it's almost certain that CSW isn't Satoshi, this doesn't prove anything.  Literally anyone can access those keys now, because they're harmless to Bitcoin.

Some people just go full on tin-foil-hat sometimes.  They see people moving forward together and assume it has to be a conspiracy, rather than simply taking a course of action which is beneficial for the group as a whole.  Or, if they aren't deluded, they're just malicious.  One or the other.  The good news is that it won't slow our progress and few people are buying into the FUD.  Just ignore them.

Regardless of whether you call it a vision, philosophy, mantra or something else entirely, Bitcoin has now grown far beyond the influence of one person (assuming satoshi wasn't a group, that is).  People should stop basing their views about Bitcoin's current direction on what they believe satoshi would have wanted.  Not only because no one can know exactly what that was now, but also because you can't logically have a decentralised crypto if you're constantly making an appeal to authority when trying to move forward.

Fair enough, I'll lock this one down, then.

No, you don't earn the points for all reports, just the ones the moderators have marked "good".  If there are still concerns, it could be further restricted so that only newbie posts could be deleted.

It could be a tiered system based on when you unlock the badges:

300+ good reports, you can only remove "Brand new" ranked posts
1000+ good reports, you can remove "Newbie" and lower ranked posts
5000+ good reports, you can remove "Jr Member" and lower ranked posts

Maybe the higher reporting badges could earn mod points a bit faster as well.  But there are definitely ways and means to curb the potential for abuse.

Perhaps I am too trusting.  Would a bolded red message stating "Abuse of this feature will lead to the permanent ban of your account" not incentivise good behaviour?  It stands to reason that because it's very difficult to attain a high rank now, if you restricted its usage to members with high ranks, Senior Members or above, they won't want to risk losing their accounts.  It would be a given that forum staff would have to receive some sort of report to verify it's being used correctly.  I should probably add that to the OP, actually.

People generally agree we need more moderation to combat low quality spam posts, but many people wouldn't volunteer to do it as a full-time job.  Would there be an easy way to implement a system where those with good reporting history could earn "Mod Points"?  

We could start small to test the concept and make sure there's no abuse.  So, as an example, for every 200 accurate reports you make, you would earn a single "Mod Point", which you could expend to delete one spam post.  Then, if people aren't abusing it and the idea proves successful, we could lower the threshold to 100, then later maybe even 50 or fewer accurate reports.  You could also use any combination of rank/trust/merit as a prerequisite too if potential abuse is a concern.  Maybe it might be decided that you have to be Sr Member or above with no negative trust to be eligible to earn mod points.  But since anyone found to be abusing it would obviously risk losing their account permanently, I don't think abuse would be a big issue.  If you've taken the time and effort to make lots of accurate reports, it's fair to assume you care enough about the forum not to act maliciously.

[//EDIT1:  And forum staff would need to get a report so they can monitor that it's being used correctly]
[//EDIT2:  It's something that could work in conjunction with the proposed reporter badges with some refinement]

Eventually, this could ease the burden on the existing mods and encourage higher posting standards in the community.

Thoughts?

I'd give you A+ for enthusiasm, but your direction seems a little misguided here.  Partly because this doesn't seem like the kind of decision that would be influenced by a poll.  But mostly because you're including people who have aleady stated unequivocally that they don't want the job.  So if you have done this in the full knowledge that the "vote" is pointless and the whole idea is just to pester theymos, this probably isn't the most constructive approach.

There's a whole swarm of them, not only the one account.  Just report them where you see them.  See this thread.