If it is centralized, then those important things in its production can be changed. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that every node will make sure that every block follows the rules and don't change the rules of production. But if it is centralized, then that means that some central authority sets the rules and tells everyone else what the rules are, even if they don't like the rules. With decentralization, if I don't like the rules, I can change them or go with the old ones. With centralization, someones says "these are the rules and that's that" and no one else can change that. So that means that the central authority can change the rules at their own whim and everyone that uses their coin has to follow.

So what exactly would Law Enforcement be looking for on this forum? Besides the obvious ponzi's and illegal goods, what else would they look for that under some technicality is also illegal?

It isn't that easy to implement, although the pseudo code exists. Also, the core devs disagree on whether to use a dynamic limit, fixed schedule increasing limit, or something else completely. Each of the options have its own drawbacks, it is just a matter of which drawbacks to accept and which to not.

Yup. But my balance doesn't change.

With a-ads, I make about 0.001 per week with about 30 visitors a day.

The thing is, I never saw my balance change at all.

I have used them before for a website, and they generally suck. I had one of their ads up for a while and it earned absolutely nothing, even with a few clicks and several views per day. I suppose part of it was that there were not many people visiting my site, but still, they paid me nothing. I changed ad networks after a little bit to a-ads.

Why use the blockchain.info api? Blockchain.info has a terrible track record and their service isn't all that great. I would not use their api.

There is absolutely nothing that distinguishes the transactions of one chain and the other except that some of the transactions might eventually lead back to a coinbase which is in one chain but not the other.

Assuming that nothing else changes except stuff for the fork, then nodes would still communicate to each other no matter which fork they are on. So they would still relay transactions and thus those transactions would appear to all nodes. If those transactions spent coins that were not tainted with coins from coinbases created after the fork, then that transaction would be accepted by nodes on both blockchains and thus be included in both blockchains.

With two chains, the coins are not duplicated. Since everyone would still be on the same network and using the same magic bytes, every transaction that spends a transaction from before the fork would appear on both blockchains. You wouldn't have double the coins, you would just be moving them around simultaneously on two chains.

If I were providing a business loan, I would want to meet them face-to-face and meet with them periodically to check on how things are going and how they are using the money.

You can get paid bitcoin for pratically any job out there. There is a service, bitwage, that allows you to receive your paycheck in bitcoin even if your employer doesn't pay with Bitcoin. Your paycheck goes to bitwage, and they give you Bitcoin.

Thanks, that helps. I was thinking along the lines of a loan of an account to someone and telling him to return it by some date but he never does.

There have been more transactions recently so more blocks are full and thus larger. That will take some more time to process, but it should be all done in a few days.

Use the digital goods section in the marketplace. You can send people personalized download links or you can send them an email with the good as an attachment.

It isn't any better than BTCJam. The one difference for me was that they accepted my verification stuff while btcjam didn't. There are a lot of scammers there and I have been scammed there before. They allow people to take rep loans, which is just really stupid.

If someone claimed their account was hacked or they forgot the password, and they posted a signed message from a bitcoin address from 2 years ago, but the current owner is able to post a signed message from 6 months ago, which one would take precedence and who would get the account, the guy with the old address or the guy with the newer address?

2 party escrows are still being used with multisig, which is kinda how multisig escrow works. And what we know as multisig is p2sh, which has been around since 2012, so definitely more than a year.

And what does bitgo.com have anything to do with this?

OK, here are my recommendations:

1. Buy bitcoin now. This year is the best time to buy bitcoin. If you get it below the $270, it's going to be good.
2. It depends, though, assuming you buy today, I suggest you hold until april or may 2016. Sometime during 2016, before July, because there will probably be a spike a few months before then.
3. Faucets. They are fractions of pennies. HYIPs scams (or programs where they say they'll give you a large percentage back for your "investment").
4. Bitcoin services. Find something that the bitcoin environment is lacking, and try to make it better. If you have lots of money you're willing to invest (AKA: are comfortable losing, like any investment), you can try to start mining.
5. For mining, you need a large amount of electricity, maybe some cooling. And a lot of investment capital. You need to be completely serious about mining if you want to start (profitably) mining.

I am going to have to quote myself, I guess: When it comes to these kinds of shootings, it seems to mostly take place somewhere that the shooter wants to direct anger at.

If I remember correctly, he did attend that university. Reminds me of shootings like the one army base that was shot up twice... by the people who had been stationed there.
Now, I would like to (again) state that the security should have had at lease one well-trained official with access to a gun. But the university is not, and never was a gun-free zone. I don't think it would have played a role, and I will agree with you that those P.O.S. cowards are not stupid enough to run into NRA clubs and police stations guns blazing. Does that mean that we should have every school, university and theater to be filled with people with firearms? Because that's a "solution" that I think would yield bad results.

Yes, of course. I'm only pointing out the flaw in saying that the shooter targeted the university because it was a place where no firearms were allowed. When it comes to these kinds of shootings, it seems to mostly take place somewhere that the shooter wants to direct anger at. He also had a very important thing to say, something along the lines of "the responders could have confused me for the shooter", something I think is likely to happen in crowded places as well. That's something that helps show that "only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" narrative pushed by lobbyist isn't as important. There was a stat about the vast majority of (mass?) shootings ending before the police (or any "good guy with a gun") interfere. I cant find it, though I found this article about shooting stopped by people on-site.
I understand it's for self-defense, not stopping people from committing crimes. But then, that talking point about the "good guys with guns" always comes up. Sadly, we do need armed campus security, but they have to be careful to have the people protecting the students from that threat be properly trained. Have them know how and when to use it.