Why, though? If your customers wish to remain anonymous, they can just access your clearnet site through Tor. You won't know who they are and their ISP won't know what they're doing. That's all that's required, right? Having a .onion site is only needed if you're worried about your web host or your web host's ISP taking down your site, which shouldn't really be an issue if what you're doing is legal.

Probably because they hate the idea of having their money forcibly taken from them? Just a thought.

It's exactly what it says on the tin: how intensely cgminer uses your GPU to mine bitcoins. Setting this higher than your system can handle is a Bad Idea, as you discovered the hard way. As a general rule, anything above 9 is probably too high, and your primary card will need to be much lower unless you don't mind your GUI lagging severely.

That method is completely anonymous, but requires the presence of a Tor exit node in a free country. Running Bitcoin as a Tor hidden service does not involve exit nodes, and therefore works even if every ISP in the world is blocking Bitcoin traffic, though it's more complicated to set up.

Sorry, but you can't. Transactions less than BTC0.01 always require a fee of at least BTC0.0005, to discourage spam. If you use a modified client to send it without an appropriate transaction fee, the transaction will never be confirmed (so don't do that).

Yes. In fact, it has already been reduced once before for exactly this reason, during the 2011 frenzy (it was originally BTC0.01).

You seem to have a funny definition of the word "fair". As far as I'm concerned "fair" means "if you do more work, you get paid more". How is it "fair" to pay miners equally regardless of how much work they do?

I actually managed to watch the whole thing. I wish I didn't.

Mined coins require 120 confirmations, except for pools that pay out indirectly (which p2pool doesn't). Just be patient.

Why do you scam people? Is it just for the money, or the satisfaction of outsmarting someone, or what?

No, but this does:

Were you trying to imply that you're smarter than your interlocutor and therefore you are right and he is wrong? If not, what did you mean by this? Because I can think of no other reason for making such a remark.

Because confirming transactions is also voluntary. If you don't pay any fees, that fine; just don't expect your transactions to be confirmed anytime soon (or even ever, in some cases).

Wrong. You don't understand how proof-of-work works at all. The whole point of proof-of-work is that it is difficult to perform the work, but easy to verify that the work is correct. As difficulty increases, the number of hashing operations needed to solve a block increases. However, verifying the solution requires only a single hashing operation, no matter what the difficulty.

The CPU usage was due to the use of an inefficient database system (used to index transactions, and having nothing to do with proof-of-work) in older versions of Bitcoin. The latest version of Bitcoin uses a much more efficient database system, which has solved the problem.

Nobody cares who you are. If an idea is sound it doesn't matter whether it came from a plumber or a theoretical physicist. If an idea is unsound, again it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you're right or not. And you aren't.

And if you're incorrect (which you are), once your "discovery" gets into the news, the whole world will think you're a fool. We're just trying to save you the embarrassment.

You are incorrect, and need to learn more about how proof-of-work works. The key to any proof-of-work function is that it is it difficult to perform the work, but easy to verify that the work is correct. In the case of Bitcoin, the function is to find a set of data whose SHA-256 hash is less than a particular "target" value. Since hashes are essentially random, there is no way to perform this function without repeatedly hashing many candidate data sets until you find one which matches the target. The lower the target, the more hashing operations are required. But crucially, verifying that the solution is correct requires only a single hashing operation, regardless of the target. Although ASICs substantially increase the difficulty of finding hashes, verifying them does not (and will never) require any more computational effort than it does presently.

Note also that the purpose of mining is not to provide "a level playing field", but to secure the blockchain from attack. ASICs help this security by making attacks utilising conventional hardware (such as botnets or general-purpose supercomputers) much less feasible.

I'm also not sure I understand your proposed "solution" to this non-existent problem, either, though it seems to be far more centralised (and therefore vulnerable to attack), and also nobody like inflatacoins, neither.

Then maybe you shouldn't have put your money into a volatile and speculative asset? Emotions have no place here. Personally, I love this shit. Sell at the top, buy back at the bottom: easiest money I ever made. Well, I guess holding gains are easier, but this is more fun.

[​btc​] -> BTC

Or just press the "Insert Bitcoin symbol" button that's up there next to Bold, Italic, etc.

This only applies if you sold your coins more than 12 months after your purchased them. If it's less than 12 months, the full amount is taxable. Also, it's not just trading bitcoins for fiat that counts: trading bitcoins for anything counts as a "realisation event" and you have to pay tax on the fair market value (eg, if you use your bitcoins to buy $1000 worth of widgets, that's exactly the same as if you just sold those bitcoins for $1000). The only difference is that when trading for fiat, the fair market value is easy to figure out, since a dollar is always worth exactly $1.

No it's not.

"Proximamente" means "coming soon". At the moment it's only daily free coins, I'm pretty sure.

Yes, it's in Spanish. It's a Spanish website, from Spain. Is that a problem?

This is exactly what's supposed to happen. The default value is a non-breaking space, so the browser sends a non-breaking space. What did you expect? No browser will send a regular space in this situation. Perhaps something in the old software was silently converting non-breaking spaces to regular spaces? Otherwise it should never have worked in the first place if non-breaking spaces are such a problem.