Trying to track coins that have gone through mixing services is classic police work.  If you go through a "classic" Bitcoin mixer like the defunct Bitmixer, you would deposit coins and they would pay you different coins that were deposited to them earlier.

Authorities would have to try and deduce some addresses which belong to the mixing service, and separate the different coins being mixed by amount (0.112 BTC is deposited to Bitmixer, the same amount minus fees comes out to a different address).  Blockchain analysis tools aren't too bad at stuff like this.

It's equally difficult to track large amounts to small amounts, it's only about how well the owner of those coins has protected their privacy.

In the case of Chipmixer, you receive entirely new wallets (Electrum wallets) instead of just new coins, and the wallets have fixed amounts of funds already inside of them which are different amounts to the amount you deposited.  Many mixing services try a variety of methods to get rid of the blockchain link to your coins.

It's obviously bullshit.  It's extremely unlikely that we're talking about more than a few million in total.  I hate when people overestimate the popularity of something they're doing, just because they're on a forum where people come to discuss it.  Most other places, people are only vaguely aware of the concept and even some people who currently own cryptocurrency are unaware of the banking system's current state (and are in it for more fiat).
BTC has had repeated bubbles.  There's the most faith in it right at the top of the bubble and the least right after it.  The ideal period is that part in between when a bull market is just beginning, like early 2016.  That's when merchants actually start accepting it as a decent payment system.  Most merchants don't care about stupid rises in price, you just hear about the few that do care as soon as the price leaps.

---

What people can't get through their head is that there won't just be a sudden point at which the general public decide "alright, Bitcoin's pretty cool, let's get using it".  BTC will always be divisive, and there will only be a very gradual shift towards usage.  

This rise in price is NOT a "paradigm shift", it's only a "price shift".  Merchant usage is not getting much higher now than it was a few months ago, if at all.

Even though I'm expecting a crash in the BTC price, "investing" in that ICO is the most stupid idea you could ever have.

They're exactly like every other ICO this year - one completely mediocre idea that they stretch out into a giant whitepaper, and then promise to end world poverty with.  In this case they're promising that unemployed people all over the world will no longer have to worry about money again, because they can "earn billions" from home by playing a stupid Ethereum-based game.

You would be better off holding a rock than that shit.  At least BTC has some purpose.

Now please lock this thread and figure out what a "brain" is.

PayPal's fees in the US are 2.9% plus a static $0.25 fee.

$390 x 0.029 + $0.25 = $11.56, which would be the fee PayPal charges you if you're paying for goods and services.  So it's more than BTC.

In the UK they're even higher - 3.4% + £0.2.  390 dollars is about 300 pounds, so it would be 10.4 pounds, or 13.45 dollars.

BTC's fees are completely off the rails due to the bubble that we're in, but for significant transfers they're still lower than PayPal.  Regardless, SegWit will be activated in 1450 blocks and after a while we'll start moving our coins to SegWit-enabled wallets.

In 2009 when he received some worthless tokens in extremely early development (as a simple test), he could easily have lost access to his wallet.  It's not particularly unlikely.
Hang on a second, so this is what you're doing:

-Insulting people for believing Mike when he said he has no coins left
-Believing Mike when he said he has no coins left

Economic crises come pretty much every ten years in modern society.  The main question is how severe the next one will be.

It'll be the first economic crisis that BTC has lived through.  It existed in the later part of the last crisis, but it was not yet relevant enough for people to care about it.  So this time will be when we can see how BTC actually reacts to a crisis.

Personally I think BTC will pretty much ignore the crisis and act as it would anyway.  If BTC is already in a bubble when it happens (like it is now), it'll probably just act as false justification for the high prices before a crash.

You'd have to clarify exactly what the risks involved are before the user decides to use it.  The problem that you have to get past is that if the user sees an inconvenient version and a convenient version, why wouldn't they choose the convenient one?  It's just like Purse.io's slider of discount.  As you go for higher discounts it becomes more likely that the goods were bought from stolen credit cards, but the lay man doesn't think about this and just slides it as far as possible.

One incentive that you could have for them to use the main version is a static fee on "Chipmixer Lite" similar to Bitmixer.  Then they'd want to use the main version unless they couldn't handle using Electrum wallets at the time or they only needed the simpler privacy features of the Lite version instead of protection against governments and other powerful forces.

The only problem with that incentive is that it could mean that when using the main version, they might want to pay a lower donation than the fee for Chipmixer Lite.  The large users that understand your service properly might not have this problem, but smaller users could.

In any case you would have to be very careful about how you handle the coins for this service.

Moving your funds is secure, yes.  As long as the wallet you move them to is secure, it's safe to hold them there too.  A Ledger hardware wallet would be a reasonable choice.  

Actually, you don't have to use the Ledger hardware wallet's interface with it.  You can use Electrum with your hardware wallet too if you want, and just have the hardware wallet secure your keys.

Almost all mined cryptocurrencies except Bitcoin are mined with GPUs.  ASICs are starting to develop for Scrypt coins too, but still altcoins are mostly for GPUs.

---

BTC provides an unparalleled security due to the vast amounts of money and computing power dedicated to securing the chain and the inability for 51% attacks to affect other users' coins.  Major altcoins are also extremely secure.

The more equipment gets bought, the more secure cryptocurrencies become, so I'm all for it.  But the sheer amount of economic value that would get wasted if they were used regularly really does raise questions about how viable they would be for mainstream use.

Your survey needs to include "Other" answers and multiple responses for almost all of these questions.

It's very restrictive to see, for example "which sources do you use to make a trading decision?"  and only a few measly answers.  I use Slack channels, the coins' websites (to understand the fundamentals of the coin) and occasionally technical indicators on exchanges.  I also sometimes access exchanges from multiple browsers and I sometimes access them from the Brave browser which isn't listed there.

"How often do I trade?"  is another one which obviously needs to be less restrictive.

Bittrex used to allow withdrawals of 1 BTC for unverified accounts.  Recently they've been transitioning away from unverified accounts to comply with KYC regulations.

For a while they kept 1 BTC withdrawals for accounts created before October 30th 2016 while removing withdrawals for new accounts and having 0.025 max withdrawals for accounts created quite recently.

Now they have 0.025 BTC withdrawals for accounts created before October 30th 2016 and no withdrawals for unverified accounts after that.

Presumably they will soon transition to forced verification.  That looks like the way they're going.  To be fair though, basic verification is extremely simple and it's only publicly available information.

Before fees:  maybe 10 cents worth per hour.

After fees (for the faucets sending to you and the fees of sending those tiny amounts of money to others):  0 cents per year.

Faucets are almost completely pointless.  If you use a faucet cache for a long time with all of the faucets that you claim at, spend your entire day claiming from faucets and don't sleep (and you send 10 satoshi/byte transactions using ViaBTC's transaction accelerator), you'd still be lucky to make more than a couple of hundred thousand satoshi in a week.

Either buy or do real work.  Faucets are just distributing ad revenue from users who never want to click on ads.

Credit cards are so impractical for small transactions that most pubs and clubs in my area refuse to accept credit cards for payments of less than £10.  PayPal charges a static fee of £0.2 for all transactions in addition to their fee of 3.4%.

---

Most nodes will refuse to relay the tiniest microtransactions and mining pools will refuse to include them in blocks.  You'll notice that the addresses that were spamming the network a while ago usually actually sent transactions of about 0.0001 BTC (10,000 satoshi) rather than 0.00001 BTC (1,000 satoshi).

Sending a transaction that small is technically possible but it's so impractical (just like with credit cards and PayPal) that there's not really any point.

It's a mixture of:

-Support for SegWit and the prospect of more convenient BTC transactions
-The mainstream media maturing on the topic of BTC
-Whale pump (there's obviously a fair element of that)
-Newbie ignorance (to think that the current price is a good time to buy).

While I think this is a bubble, I do not think that there's a point starting extremely irritatingly biased threads about it instead of providing reasonable options.

You would be against anything if it was something people might be scared about.

What are you on about?

The bubble moved out of the stealth phase at around $1000, differing from the mean.  If you look at a chart, you can see the bull market beginning at around August to October 2015.  In late 2016 it starts pushing unusually fast, moving into the "awareness phase".  In about March 2017 there is a notable sell off, which is the "bear trap".  Then the price begins jumping sharply at the start of May, which is when the "mania phase" begins.

During the mania phase there has been some swings, but only relatively minor ones.  Even the drop to $1800 was not very significant.  Now we are going so rapidly upwards that it is blatantly the "greed" or "delusion" phase (which is why the public, including you, are having delusions about where we are in the bubble).

The bubble may have further to go up, but I'm already mostly out as I've been buying stuff with my coins over the last couple of days.

---

The "mean" is somewhere between $800 and $1200 if you ask me.  I expect a bear market to bottom out around $600, which could happen in the next two to three years.

It's not really about that.  It's about the fact that Bitfinex is shit at abiding by regulations and they really don't want to abide by regulations.

Their fears are that working with US customers without abiding by US regulations could leave them in the same situation with BTC-E.  Their concern is completely reasonable, because the only other thing they could do is become really strict with KYC for US customers, and then become really strict for everyone because otherwise it would be hard to prove whether someone was a US customer or not.

If they didn't do this they would either:
-End up like BTC-E
-End up like Bitstamp in that everyone complains that there are way too many KYC regulations.

I don't mean that BTC being used for illegal purposes was a problem.  I doubt that satoshi would think that way knowing that cash is more anonymous.  It's about BTC becoming notorious for illegal dealings online among the public, which has unfortunately happened to some extent.

IMO it was a response to PC World's article.  Satoshi may have thought PC World associated Wikileaks too closely with BTC.
This is a similar factor related to the legality of BTC.  But if satoshi was concerned about being arrested, perhaps his concerns were unfounded considering that Gavin and other contributors were not arrested for their association to BTC (the authorities would not have a leg to stand on).  I think it's more likely that satoshi wanted a small community and slower growth at first.

I've seen this post before.  Presumably he meant:

1.  BTC is still an experimental software.  It would be nice to have time to develop it before it becomes too popular, because then he couldn't coordinate most people to do similar things very easily (forks, second implementations, etc).
2.  Possibly that he didn't want BTC to become notorious for illegal activity because he wanted it to be used by ordinary people.

Resign?  He was just a developer.  He only had power because he developed the reference client and people agreed with what he said.  

Simple.  Shapeshift say they have no fees because their business model is to give you shit exchange rates.  Presumably they buy in bulk and then sell back to you for worse amounts than the price on proper exchanges.

Proper exchanges get arbitraged to death if they differ from the price on the other exchanges unless there's some kind of problem with moving coins.

You seem to be overthinking Bittrex.  It's very simple.  You deposit coins that you want to sell.  Someone else wants to buy them.  Boom, you make a trade.  And vice versa.  If too many people want to sell, the price will move down because people need someone to buy their coins (and they're only willing to do so at a lower price).  

Transaction fees have got a bit higher now, so it's possible it could take longer.

I recommend submitting your transaction to the ViaBTC accelerator at the start of the hour to try and get your transaction in when they mine a block.

Since they've started dedicating a lot of hashrate to BCH, they'll mine less blocks, but you should still give it a try.