Maybe I am being obtuse, but what about lightweight wallets that do not DL the entire blockchain.  Would those not be safe from such attacks?

After reading many of the FUD threads, I have changed my mind.  Actually the new fork would not be catastrophic as I first thought.  I misunderstood what it actually was, but in practice it might only be a minor speed bump for bitcoin IF it happens.

It is absurd to think that Gavin would ruin something he has spent so much time and effort on.  I suppose anything is possible but maxing coins would be very unlikely, mostly because it would be against the best wishes of all participants.  And it is not needed ever.

But why OK coin, I though they were a fairly major exchange?  Is there some specific reason, or are you just giving advice that we shouldn't keep money in online wallets?

When I first heard about it the price was low, in the beginning,  but I didnt actually buy anything until it was over 200.  Its more a case of not looking into it, and not knowing what it was.  But once I read about it in detail I became very interested.

I really hope this doesnt happen.  It looks like a bluff, because why would he kill his own creation?  its just ridiculous.

This would be horrible for BTC, I hope it doesnt happen.  Seriously wtf.  Maybe I will get into some litecoin just in case.

This.  Anything can happen, just look at the history of big company failures like Enron.  However there are too many supporters for it to just disappear.  I notice more businesses taking it as payment, more people aware of it (if not using it), and even governments taking notice and enacting national laws about it.  These things point toward positive growth in the long run.  There will always be price fluctuations but you have to look at the why not the what.  I once bought a stock at 28$ that dropped to ~20 after I bought it.  But not only did the fundamentals stay the same, they got better.  For whatever reason investors were bearish about the company.  I held and now its worth ~110$ a share.  You have to keep an eye on the fundamentals not on the speculation.

Maybe some of those media clowns bought some bitcoins and no longer want to report negative about it.  But it is strange to not mention bitcoins.  It seems that every story comes with a one or two sentence description like "bitcoin for those who don't know is the infamous currency used by drug kingpins and mafioso to run their crime syndicates".

I don't think this will have an effect on price.  Any price movements related to this story have played out long ago when the SR was taken down, and well before he was sentenced.  The conviction is sort of the aftermath that everyone was expecting, even if they were not expecting such a long sentence.

I am scratching my head a little at this.  Why would they wan tto use ripple, a fairly obscure crypto instead of one with a higher market cap such as litecoin or bitcoin?  Maybe Taun is correct and it is just a pump and dump.  If so not a bad time to put a few pennies in I guess, but its easy to get burned if you are not careful.

Crap, I wish I knew about this earlier.  I dont come to the legal forums very often.  This is total B.S.  So what if I trade on a foreign exchange?  Does this mean that I have to use Tor now for everything?  I hope not because it is very slow to load anything.  Thanks for posting this and I wish I could have gone.  I guess I have some reading to do.

Edit:  OK so it is not as bad as I thought:

"(c) “Virtual currency business” means the conduct of either of the following types of activities involving a California resident:
(1) Storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of virtual currency on behalf of others.
(2) Providing conversion or exchange services of fiat currency into virtual currency or the conversion or exchange of virtual currency into fiat currency or other value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of virtual currency into another form of virtual currency."

So basically it looks like they want to ban California based exchanges.  I have no idea why they would not want to tax this stuff, but whatever. 

The wording seems vague and difficult to interpret, but the way I read it you can still run a business such as selling stuff online for bitcoins, you just can't run a wallet or exchange.  Is that right?  Are there any lawyers here to interpret this?

It really depends on what country you live in.  Some places don't tax it at all, others do.  Your best bet is to ask a local tax professional for help in determining your tax obligations.

Captain I see a swarm of sock puppets off the starboard bow.

This seems pretty obvious. People please put your coins in a digital sock under your bed or something, but keep it away from this scheme or you are sure to lose it.  And even if you do profit it will at the loss and suffering of someone else.

Hi, I suggest you be more specific about the repayment time.  If you give a vague time frame then it makes it look like you are planning to scam.  You might also say that you will use escrow, and even say which one.

Right now paranoia reigns supreme with the hack and all.  It might be difficult to get a loan using your account as collateral.

Edit: you may also want to offer an interest rate.

Make sure that you factor in tiered electricity if you have it.  The more I use the more it costs per unit, and you will be in for a rude surprise if it is the same in your area.

If you are making this as a hobby then fine, or maybe you have super cheap electricity where you live.  Right now scrypt is supposed to be very hard or impossible to mine for a profit.  I suggest you run some numbers.  Find out the hash of your rig, the cost of electricity, factor in the network difficulty of the coin you want to mine and its value.  You will almost certainly get a better return on your money with a reputable cloud service like hashnest.  Some of the services are supposedly ponzis, so if the returns seem to good to be true then they most likely are.

But if it is just for fun have at it.

Well that is refreshing.  A ponzi that admits what it is.  I can not tell if this is serious or not.  It would be a novel way to scam some people out of a few coins.  Just ask nicely in stead of making a fake scheme.

bobk71, there is NOTHING indirect about government manipulation the stock market.  Check out the Greenspan Put for example.  The rich get richer and the rest of us get a recession.

As to another crash happening: there must be some catalyst.  It can be a real danger or a perceived one.  However there will be a bear market soon when the fed raises interest rates.  Yellen said they are going to.  Whether it will be a crash from the currently overpriced market or a slow descent remains to be seen.

Thanks for posting this, it is really interesting.  Now let me try and wrap my head around it.  OK done.  I tend to agree with odolvlobo even if the results seem conclusive.  I would like to see this tracked long term to find out if the variables do indeed lag/lead or correlate directly.

The bankers have an enormous influence on governments.  Example: US financial positions are mostly filled by former Goldam-Sachs execs.  When they were bailing out companies from the 2008 meltdown what company did they let fail?  Right!  Goldman's biggest competitor.  And when AIG went under, the government bailed them out and made them pay Goldman at 100%.  Who the f gets 100% in a bankruptcy?  And not to mention that Paulson (the guy in charge of bailouts) just came off of being the Goldman CEO.  Why is this significant? BECAUSE HE WAS IN CHARGE WHEN GOLDMAN WAS MAKING THE DERIVATIVES THAT HELPED CAUSE THE WHOLE MESS.  He knew the crap was going to hit the fan.  It almost seems like they planned it this way...

I could go on but it won't be good for my blood pressure so I will stop here.