I take back what i wrote. It was my fault. No problem with the password. Sorry...

Though there is a problem at starting my portable version on win 7 pro 64bit. It says Runtime Error! for the exe. The R6034 and that it couldne load a C runtime library correctly. When i click that away then its still working it seems.

Edit 2: Another thing is that its not possible anymore to use zero fees. I have zero in my settings but when i enable the option to set it manually while sending then i cant enter the full amount. When i do it then the amount turns red. Or is that the absolute minimum that is needed because the network wont accept it anyway otherwise? I had no big transactions so i dont know if thats the case.

Edit 3: What is this GreenAddress about? Its a widely used term and i dont see a change when having it checked.

I cant tell when when it was implemented but i doubt that it brings anonymity at all. I mean if you see a transaction coming from one address going to two other addresses while clearing the sending address with it. What would you think. One of the target addresses is owned by the sending user most probably. So its a pretty good guess if you can identify the other address as connected to an exchange or so.

Even worse, the change addresses collect the coins and mostly users dont care about that sending coins out of them, is connecting different change addresses. So its possible to further say what addresses belong to that user.

The only solution to real anonymity is not to connect your addresses by sending from more than one address at a time. If an exchange or service has a fixed addresss, which unfortunately happens quite often, then you can reveal your own addresses too if you send to the same address from different addresses you own.

So anonymity isnt really helped by change addresses in my opinion. It might even get worse if you dont have full control about sending addresses.

I didnt check the thread nor the user but even if he offers to use an escrow, escrow wont help you at all. If the owner of a voucher contacts the company the voucher is from, claims that his voucher was stolen then the money from the voucher will taken back. The buyer sits on the loss and the escrow cant do anything about it.

The only way that an escrow could help would be to find out how long the voucher seller could claim a voucher stolen. If the escrow funds, from a trusted escrow, are given to the seller only after that time, then you are safe.

So if you have doubts then better stay away. Only invest or buy if you are pretty sure that it will go fine.

I see... his new post doesnt make much sense too. Ill ignore him now.

What now? Is this drop temporary or is it falling now endless?

After having around 1200 transactions ans 310 addresses in an electrum wallet it gets really unuseable even on my relatively good 8 core computer. No way around than creating a new wallet and change all address settings on websites and so on. If you notice things become very slow then better move on to the next wallet since now i have the problem to get the coins out when electrum doesnt give me even the time to do so. It constantly is calculating something. When im lucky i find a short timeframe in between to set up a transaction.

Either python? is too slow or the code for python is not optimized.

Isnt that the story of practically everyone investing in bitcoin investments? So you say it was obvious to everyone that they all were crooks. Still everyone invested. But now... for some reason i dont see yet... small shareholders go against the big shareholders because the big shareholders should have known that they were crooks. I thought a 5 year old could have seen that?

Im not sure if i miss a piece in this all but to me it looks like some people did an investment that went wrong. And now there has to be someone who pays. And that must be the big shareholders... because they must have had more info and had to be smarter. They had to knew they were scam. Cant be another way... no it cant be that they did not know that. Erm... sorry... that thinking is poor.

This is bitcoin world. Investments are this way here unfortunately. First it was all great to invest in these practically anonymous companies and now somebody must be the culprit... only not oneself. Might be too hard to admit that one did a wrong decision.

I hate this part of wrong going investments in bitcoin world with a passion because i lost more than i would like to think about. Unfortunately in most cases nothing can be done because IAM was so very very stupid. In some cases i can go behind them. Try to get reimbursement or at least justice. But not everywhere. Im pretty sure though that i wouldnt blame an exchange for selling me the shares i wanted to buy. Maybe thats only me. At least im surprised how many think different it seems.

But maybe i still miss some piece of it...

Im wondering... lets assume you own a big warehouse with a big bureau. A company is renting it and you earn from letting them do their business. Things go wrong with the business and the boss of the company runs with the money. So why are you responsible for reimburse the customers of the company again? Maybe i misse a point of this all.

As far as i learned till now resistance lines and support are no lines, more an area... maybe it makes more sense to you then?

I know that so many trader tell me that the price will go up now. Still im not convinced. Guess i was burned too often with "it will go up for sure" until now. So whats the difference between all the people now claiming everything shows it will go up and the traders saying that you should sell when everyone claims it will go up and buy when its at the bottom.

Guess im really new at trading... 

I think you should consider the re-registering. You would be able to hold all the good writers in your campaign and wont lose them because they were too late. You could consistently better the quality of the posts this way instead randomly getting new people inside. I think that would lead to a better quality campaign. Thats a point i dont like with this campaign since it brings in insecurity. You wouldnt know if you wouldnt need to find a new campaign after the timeframe is over. You only would need a bit too slow and you would need to remember this all the time. I think many good writers dont like to bother with things like that. They only want to write and when they could get paid by the way then its a bonus.

Only my thoughts...

In fact its WAY better when you start with such a low amount. Starting with higher amounts will make you lose everything fast. Because you need experience for this.

Trading bitcoins with low amounts is doable much better than in fiat markets because exchanges here have fixed fees. So it doesnt matter how much you trade. Except you get some discounts later maybe.

Next thing is that its easier to make a profit because the orderbooks might be not so deep. With low amounts you trade on the top of orderbooks. With big amounts you might buy deep into the orderbook. Or you build a wall to be broken.

So yes... trade and await to lose it. But you will learn from it. Better is though to first learn and then risk real money.

It should be the way that an escrow who isnt connected to the campaign or the underlying company holds the funds BEFORE the week or month starts. The escrow then would have no reason with withhold the funds after the week. Which is possible when the funds were held by the campaign runner or website owner. Of course it might be harder to send out the correct amounts. But the escrow ensures that the funds are there, cant vanish until the end of the timeframe and will be paid out.

So its really only that they own enough shares to have a board seat and that they traded their own parts of the share on their own exchange? That doesnt make them responsible in any way as long as they did not make the decisions for AM/AMHASH. And as a shareholder with board seat they were in no position to decide how things are done in these projects. How could they be responsible?

I see that its tempting to find someone to get compensation back but shareholders without a saying in the company cant be taken as the ones at fault that have to compensate. They would be victims the same way and no one would have kept you from offering your own shares as your private passthrough. That still wouldnt make you someone who is responsible for the acts of the company.

But you only need to trade on the margin account. You dont need to first take a loan. Its automated. Simply go to margin trading and buy what you want.

Thats something i wondered first too about.

Airwolf... isnt Havelock only the owner of shares then? Till now it only looks like they own shares but i dont see why you think they have more to say in AM/AMHASH than any normal shareholder with seat. Besides that you own an exchange and you let your shares be traded as passthroughs. So you might be able to change the price. Or stop trading to protect the price. Why do you think they are more? Sorry if i dont get it yet.

AirWolf... what is your conclusion out of this? Havelock is unsecure or the owner has something to do with the problems of Asicminer? I mean i can see why someone wants to hide when running an unregistered exchange. Im only not sure whats the problem if Havelock is one of the owners of asicminer/amhash. Because they stopped trading for it?

If i would be in your shoes i would try if some of my models would apply to bitcoin. I believe all of the websites i mentioned allow backtesting so if you have a good algo then you might make quite some buck with the volatile price of bitcoins. At least it looks like others are able to do this. Till now i did not manage to get into that area.

You mean you know an insurance company that would or could have insured the operations that friedcat ran? I wonder what they would insure then. Future profits included? But honestly i really doubt any insurance company will take this thin bet. Do you have examples?

Edit: The big farm in thailand that burned down wasnt insured too. Im very sure they would have done if possible. I mean the loss will be huge for them. On the other hand... if there would be an insurance possible then im sure the rates would be so high that it wouldnt be worth it.

Its not 50%, its 35% maximum because they take a high fee on high percents. But what you are doing is spamming. If you keep doing that then you will be banned from the forum mods.