What else could it possibly be? The timing fits exactly, and there is no legitimate reason to dump that many coins all at once other than to manipulate the public perception of xt.

To be entirely fair, it was core supporters who artificially crashed the market by selling 20k btc on bitfinex and gdax after the first xt block was mined. So if anything, the selloff was core supporters trying to manipulate the price...

Are you willing to accept a cash deposit (at a bank with a branch in the Charlotte, NC area) and/or cash in the mail?

I want to publicly say that I strongly disagree with the removal of negative ratings against Lauda/TMAN.

In the case of Lauda, this is not the first time that he has been accused of extorting someone, and AFAICT, the claims that zeroaxl was evading taxes/engaging in illegal activity were baseless. What could be reasonably confirmed however was that zeroaxl has/had a large amount of BTC, and had the resources to pay an extortion payment in order to prevent an invasive police investigation.

I agree that DD is a very respectable businessperson, however I think he made the right decision to not allow gambling via MP if you have access to the server seeds.

If there was a business reason why someone with access to the server seeds *needs* to gamble on MP (for example for testing), then I would suggest that MP develop and implement a policy that the amounts gambled, and the potential winnings be nominal, for example to keep the total amount gambled and the total winnings under $25 per month -- even *if* there was cheating, then it would not have a statically meaningful impact on the investors.

Others have said this before, and I think it is worth saying again. The support that BU is getting is not because the ideas behind BU are so great, it is because of the strong opposition to Core and SW.

I don't believe there are any SW features that are *needed* today/now, but are rather features that might be nice to have in the future. Larger blocks on the other hand is something that Bitcoin has needed for years now. I don't see a reason why SW should get implemented prior to larger blocks, especially after what happened with the HK agreement.

Looking back, the HK agreement was worthless from the get go. Do you remember when Adam Black signed it as "an individual" instead of signing as CEO of Blockstream?

Not long before the HK agreement was signed, Mike Hern rage-quit Bitcoin development, and this gave a lot of momentum away from bitcointalk, r/bitcoin, and most importantly, away from Core. Mike Hern rage-quitting was heavily reported by the Bitcoin related media, was even reported by the MSM, and the general consensus was that Core was standing in the way of Bitcoin development. The way things were going, it would not be very long until Core would lose all control over Bitcoin development, and the users would get what they wanted -- larger blocks that accommodate the growth of Bitcoin transactions. I am not even sure if the HK meeting was even scheduled at this point.

Once the HK agreement was signed, cold water was effectively thrown on the above movement and momentum because the community believed that Bitcoin would have real scaling solutions. Unfortunately, it turned out that the HK agreement was a farce, and every deadline in the HK agreement was missed, and all the promises made by Blockstream, and their devs were broken.

Maxwell is just a dishonest person, and people have been calling him dishonest on these forums for years. He is a very fitting person to be the Chief whatever officer of Blockstream. Not unlike how it is very fitting to have Lauda, who is an extortionist, to be helping with Core development, running a spell checker in-between his scam and extortion attempts.

Bitcointalk has traditionally been very friendly towards core, and it's supporters. I think it is very interesting to see the reaction to nullc posting in this thread.

I don't think the root cause of the lag really matters from a customer's perspective, especially if it happens over long periods of time as it has on poloinex.

At the end of the day customers want to be able to quickly trade and get into and out of positions. If you cannot get out of a position then you should not trade there.

Im not sure about 4 years ago, but it would probably not be unreasonable to believe that concensus could have been reached for 8 MB blocks two years ago.

Judging solely by mores law, it would probably be safe to have a max block size of 8 MB 2 years ago if 1 MB was safe 7 years ago, especially if a very simple fix to the risk of having too many signatures in a transaction was also implemented.

It would probably be best if anyone with access to the server seeds not gamble on any MP app. It would be too easy to cheat and impossible to detect unless they are stupid about doing it.

Edit: someone with access to the server seeds could even profit after showing that they have lost overall gambling.

Why should you post all your alts here? Do you not like privacy? There isn't anything wrong with having alts. 

The trust page reflects the following message:
I am not sure how much inactivity is needed for this to be reflected.

What was the opinion that was deleted that "the mods" do not agree with so strongly that they felt it needed to be deleted? What thread was it posted in?

You can use the "watchlist" which is below that link to only view certain threads. The default behavior is to add a thread to your watchlist when you post to a thread, however if you keep this setting, you can still "unwatch" a thread after you post in it.

The miners as a whole cannot sell off their equipment, and it would probably be difficult for a miner with as little as 5-10% of the network hashrate to sell off their equipment without taking massive losses due to oversupply.

I think it is fairly trivial for the majority of Bitcoin related businesses to either diversify into altcoins or outright change to an altcoin company. For example, most exchanges have diversified into altcoin trading. Your own business has diversified into physical coins loaded with XMR, and I suspect would continue doing well with other altcoins. I believe that most Bitcoin related businesses are more of a pro-crypto bet than a pro-Bitcoin bet.

Long term holders of Bitcoin have more of a vested interest, however liquidity for Bitcoin is much greater than liquidity for Bitcoin miners, so unless you are the largest of the large holders, you can probably sell what you own with little slippage.

The miners are the only part of the Bitcoin ecosystem with a vested interest in Bitcoin.

All other entities that are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem can easily and quickly move onto various altcoins and/or other business ventures.

Pretty much every "crowdfunding" "opportunity" = scam

Especially in the Bitcoin world.

I understand your concerns that there are a lot of threads about a potential HF. There are a lot of topics about this because this is something that is very important to the future of Bitcoin (regardless of your opinions on the topic). There is a lot of information that many people need to take into consideration when formulating an opinion on the topic.

I have even seen some threads develop sub conversations that make the topic somewhat difficult to follow.

Open discussion about the possibility of a HF is important to get consensus on the appropriate course of action, and again this is regardless of your position on the topic.

Ideally, at one point in the next couple of months, the community and major economic companies will be able to reach some kind of consensus on how to get Bitcoin to scale and some change to Bitcoin will be made. The devs can state their opinion and advise the the community and economy however at the end of the day it is up to the community and economy to reach consensus and if the opinion of the community and economy differs from the devs then what the community and economy wants should prevail. 

Ideally, this kind of issue should not come up frequently and once this has been solved, the number of these kinds of threads should go down.

Did you not see the terms that loaded is offering? He is basically asking for a free put option on BU.

No one in their right mind would accept the terms loaded is offering regardless of what is being traded.