You would still have some amount of time to access your blockchain wallet and transfer it to another, safe BTC address while someone who has stolen your phone tries to figure out the code to unlock your phone and get your phone to "trust" their computer.

I think we overall need more large merchants start to accept bitcoin. Once we see enough of this, we will eventually start to see some B2B transactions.

@Bitcoinucl I have taken your survey. If you need anything else or need assistance compiling the data please send me a PM and I will be happy to help.

It really depends on how much of his coins he spends on how obvious it is that it is him spending them. If he spends only ~50 of his coins and doesn't touch his others then the market would likely not even react, especially if he spends the coins he mined later rather then earlier. If on the other hand he spends 500k of his coins then yes the market would likely crash as it would not be able to handle this kind of selling pressure.

This is exactly true. The phone company would likely not want to take on this kind of credit risk. Especially when the average phone bill is in the double digits, and they would be potentially lending out hundreds if not thousands of dollars for 1 bitcoin.

There are a lot of people who are hoarding bitcoin. I think the number of people who are doing this has gone down somewhat this year as we have not seen the extraordinary returns this year as we have sen in the past, but there are still a lot of people who are doing this.

There were not any BTC that was premined. All of the coins that were ever mined and all the coins that were ever transferred are publicly viable on the blockchain. AFAIK there is not any evidence of any of this.

All this depends on usage of bitcoin. If you were to buy bitcoin once on an exchange, send the coins to a wallet on your computer, then send the coins to your "cold wallet" then you would only have 2 addresses. On the other hand if you were to buy bitcoin several times via face to face trades, and spend your bitcoin on items multiples times per day then you could potentially have several hundred (if not thousand) addresses.

It wasn't the government regulations that caused the cost of doing business to be so high, it was the fact that there is so much credit card fraud when people buy porn that makes credit card processors charge these high fees. The government is prohibited from censoring or attempting to censor anything due to the 1st amendment.

I agree. If you are doing a smaller transaction then most merchants should be able to accept a 0/unconfirmed TX as long as the proper fee is attached.

I think he is just someone trying to spread FUD. Nothing more then a troll. It would be very well possible that he somehow has a "short" position on bitcoin, but I would doubt even this.

I think it has to do with that Alex guy who recently endorsed bitcoin. He is more or less a nut job who likely wears a tin foil hat most of the time, but has a relatively strong following.

I would agree that this is probably the best age to teach a child about bitcoin. You should teach them around the same time you teach them about "traditional' fiat money. You may want to wait a little while longer until you teach them how to secure their coins and the risks of not securing them.

If the fee is above the standard amount per kb (even 3x the standard amount at current levels) and the total fee is less then $0.50 then you should almost certainly absorb the fee. If the buyer would send some crazy amount for a fee (.5 in your example, or even .05) then I would reject the transaction and have the buyer resend the proper amount. A .05 fee would come out to roughly $30 which at this point is much more then the cost of doing business. You are correct in saying that the fee is set by the sender, but if the fee is reasonable then you should accept it.

If you owned a physical store would you not sell a $359.95 widget to a customer because they were short $0.25 when it cost you $200 to make the widget including advertising and all other costs?

This is most likely the case. I would personally doubt that satoshi was even a group of people as his writing style generally did not ever change. The CIA and the US government would really have nothing to gain by creating Bitcoin and have likely and will likely lose tax revenue as a result of it.

This is really not a good idea. If for some reason you need the money/BTC for an emergency then you would not have access to it. If you really want to have your BTC safe from those kind of urges then you should develop a written plan to spell out under what exact circumstances that you will sell your bitcoin. They should include situations when you need money regardless of what bitcoin is trading at the time.

I would say that Gox was independent of anything else bitcoin related. I don't think that Gox is proof that bitcoin was not created by the NSA/CIA. I still highly doubt that either of them built/created bitcoin however.

The exchange fees are generally very low and would be much lower then if you were to pay via a credit card. For a merchant to offer a small discount for consumers accepting bitcoin they would still end up on top because the cost for credit cards is usually in excess of 3%.

If you were to ever spend the coins that are deposited into the "ransom" address then you could potentially be subjected to a number of potential timing attacks, especially if attackers have somewhat of an idea of who the kidnapper is (a simi-small pool of people)

That was not why satoshi was against wikileaks. He was against wikileaks accepting BTC donations because them doing so would attract a lot of attention to Bitcoin when the bugs were still being worked out. That level of attention would likely result multiple attacks on the network and exploits to be found and exploited and bitcoin to fail.