Many people don't realize the severity of this problem. SatoshiDICE also doesn't use HTTPS, so a MITM can change the addresses to whomever. Any Bitcoin business that displays addresses should be using HTTPS, and any client download website should as well.

Do you have the stats to back this up, or is this from preconceived notions? It seems the latter is unfortunately common in the Bitcoin community.

Are you aware of for whom this test was initially designed?

The IQ test was originally designed for school-aged children. At that time, many women did not attend school. Thus, it primarily measures the mental aptitudes of men, and that is the population that it differentiates best. If I decided to measure intelligence with height, for which there is definitely a correlation, it may work well initially with men. When I then apply this test to women, the scale is not useful for comparing across genders because of physiological differences.

Many of the "standards" were designed long ago for a primarily male population. It is unfair to claim that these tests are appropriate for all people when they were designed for only a subset of people.

IQ tests were designed by males and initially applied to test differences between males, who were the primary school population at the time. It is no surprise that the test accentuates the intelligence variability in males. This does not prove that males are more "variable" than females, only that a test designed to measure male variability shows greater male variability than females.

Why is the date being listed as August 19? I know English is funny in the sense that "October" should be the 8th month, but the 19th day does not seem to stem from anywhere.

It is incredibly sexist to claim that fewer women are at extremes in personality, political stance, or intelligence. This is equivalent to saying that all women are similar. Such a statement is patently false.

Weird and extreme technologies attract women as easily as men. That is not an excuse for Bitcoin's gender gap. Rather, sexism and societal pressure is the primary cause of fewer women being attracted to Bitcoin. It is generally considered "uncool" for women to take interest in the frontier of technology. Luckily, this dated stance is changing and more and more women are entering frontier technologies such as nanotechnology and quantum computing. With a changing society, Bitcoin's demographics will change accordingly.

Women

Just wait. Computer science isn't a male-dominated field any more, and actually is projected to become female-dominated in the future. Bitcoin will follow.

Minorities

Like anything that involves money, Bitcoin lacks minorities. However, look at Bitcoin adoption in China and Africa. As these countries adopt Bitcoin, their diaspora will too.

Today, price has rebounded to where it was before the seizure. The takeaway?

• The "dark side" of Bitcoin was not holding up the price significantly.
• However, many people thought it was and panic sold.

This is further evidence that the media, and often Bitcoiners themselves, give far too much credit to Silk Road and other "dark side" markets. Those are not important for Bitcoin, for they make up a minimal amount of trade (after the Silk Road closure, transaction volume has not declined).

You can certainly generate 2⁸⁰ addresses with hardware available in a decade, but you need to store them to be able to detect a collision. Not going to happen in the next 20 years. So you can assure yourself that you have generated a collision with 99.999999999% certainty, but you won't be able to publish the two private keys which led to that collision.

Address collisions are far from rare. In fact, they happen all the time. We've already seen and observed thousands, if not more, collisions merely in the past.

In general, randomly-generated addresses do not collide. However, a lot of addresses are not randomly-generated.

There collisions vary in type. Most of them are from using brainwallets with weak passwords. Accidental collisions of this type are possible, but the vast majority of these collisions results from a network of bots searching weak passwords to steal any money sent there. These bots are programmed to do just three things: make addresses, detect collisions, and steal money. Even accidental collisions from humans making new brainwallets with taken passwords are often detected, as the person who imports the wallet finds a sum already stored on it. So for this type of collision, to answer your question, detection or observation is certainly possible, and indeed practised all the time.

Some collisions are from exploiting weaknesses in random number generators. The android wallet glitch is a recent example of this phenomenon. Attackers who find these weaknesses, once again, do "random" address creation en masse and check each generated address for a collision. So, once again, collisions are not only possible to detect but actually actively being detected.

Address collisions of other types fall under the same reasoning. The vast majority of collisions has been and will continue to be from attackers and malicious users, and these users would not exist without a possibility of detecting the collision.

TL;DR? Yes.

Not after a sudden 1000% jump, at least in the Bitcoin world. People would instead be selling on every other exchange as everyone starts yelling about another exchange hacked.

I added Silk Road. There will be some tweaking to the list in the near future. Right now, the "severity" lists are terrible because of how volatile the BTC price is. Consequently, I will likely be adjusting the lists to order by June 2013 BTC (which seems to have stuck as a good baseline, because price was similar to today in June and in addition price was particularly stable).

No, he is asking others to sign a message. He has probably already asked the "donator" to sign a message, which the "donator" refused for some reason (perhaps it was a shared wallet; perhaps he does not know how; etc.).

Here's a tough one: the Ross Ulbricht seizure. It doesn't fit any of the words in the title, but it seems similar enough in that it was a forced transaction to which the sender did not consent. I'm thinking of listing in on the list and making a note that the seizure was authorized by US law. Does this make sense to everyone?

A good rule to apply is, "if the site had dealt with fiat instead of Bitcoin, would it still have been shut down?". In the cases mentioned thus far, the answer to this would be yes. I see no reason to call Bitcoin illegal in the US based on these shutdowns. They were shut down not because Bitcoin is illegal, but rather because the commerce they engaged in is illegal.

It is good publicity. It means Bitcoin has moved beyond illegal drug trade. No longer will media herald:

Recycle for next month please. Updated sig to latest version.

These articles are written in advance and released on the marked date. This particular article will be released on September 21.

This better be good. If it's another altscam, then that'd be the tenth we've seen this week...

I'm swamped today... will do so once the weekend comes.