Silk Road did this in it's early days. They allowed people to lock in the US dollar price of a transaction when the funds were being held in escrow. When the buyer would release escrow the seller would receive more or less bitcoin depending on which direction bitcoin went.

This may have been how Ross was able to amass so much bitcoin as the price of bitcon was generally rising

Circle makes consumer adoption easier but it is not a good vehicle for buying large amounts of bitcoin as the have relatively small limits as to how much you can purchase at a time, while an ETF would have no such limits

I think a better solution would be to use QR codes to transmit the unsigned/signed TXs between computers (I think this was suggested once or twice above). This would prevent any physical attack to your offline computer and would ensure that nothing that has touched your online computer will ever touch your offline computer

LOL. You are referring to PoS (piece of shit mining) right?

@OP - this would not work simply because it is too easy to get multiple IP addresses. You would not even need to get any special connection as you could just create several instances on AWS with your multiple miners with 1 TH of hashrate each.

Another problem is that you cannot regulate hashrate to a specific miner. All the hashrate means is how often you are expected to find a block based on the current difficulty. This means that you wouldn't even need to have 50 IP addresses if you had 50 THs of mining hashrate, you would just need to rotate which IP address your miners broadcast the found block from each time your miners find a block

These are not your only choices. Your best choice would probably be to understand they need to earn money from advertisements as they are a media business. Any business that relies on advertising revenue will have a very high standard before they will decide to not sell ad space to them.

Just because they are displaying their ad does not mean they are endorsing them in any way. Just that they are letting them send a clearly paid message to potential customers

Russia banning bitcoin can and will cause the trade volume to decrease to levels that would be less then they otherwise would be at. It will probably still have high trading volume because their economy is not stable and bitcoin provides some level of stability to unstable economies (especially when the banking sector in such country is less then certain to survive)

Him potentially testifying has nothing to do with putting on a defense. There is also nothing that would prevent him from sending some other agent of the forum to testify they the agent has sufficient knowledge about the scope of the deposition. This is why the CEO of major companies do not testify when their companies are involved in lawsuits.

Also claiming section 230 protection would probably prevent the case from ever making it to trial in the event that immunity is upheld (if they have immunity then the facts of the case do not matter as they are not liable regardless of the facts)

I am not very familiar with the laws regarding proper service as I have never had to try to avoid service like this. Regardless he would not need to personally appear in court unless he was compelled to testify, if he simply wanted to put on a defense he could have someone appear and speak on his behalf (an attorney/team of attorneys)

The only reason bitcoin has any value is because the market gives it value. The same is true for any other asset, including art, gold, and yes dollars.

Section 230 does not provide protection against a site breaking IP (intellectual property) law, which is what copyright law is.

It is not realistic to think that the price of an asset will increase in value by 10x every year for 8 years. I cannot actually think of any asset that has appreciated as much in as short of a time period.

There are other, much more reputable sources of research that peg the max value of bitcoin to be at much more modest levels (although much higher then it is now)

If they had a warrant to monitor your ISP account and you were not using a VPN (or if you were and they also had a warrant to monitor your VPN account) then they could potentially see when you would push a TX to the network. Or if you were to order a physical good to be shipped to your house and pay in bitcoin then your address and name would be linked to the fact that you at one point owned bitcoin

Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court?

Theymos would need to be properly served in order for him to have to show up in court. Otherwise any judgement against him would not be enforceable, and  would be reversed.

If you were referring to TF posting in the VIP section then that is not something that only he was allowed to do. Anyone else is allowed to post in the VIP section provided they donate at least 50 BTC to the forum (that much was worth much less when TF donated and when most people were donating).

A case close to one regarding advertisements is Goddard v. Google, Inc.

Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information.

The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post).

Regardless if account selling is endorsed or not, it does not change the fact that the forum is not responsible for moderating scams (or potential scams). For the most part people are able to speak what is on their mind and post what they want with very few exceptions (obvious spam, maleware, links to illegal marketplaces, trading in things that are illegal). The only "flaw" in allowing people to trade accounts is that it potentially allows people to receive ill gotten "trust" as it would allow someone to potentially pull a scam in the future.

If a scam is being attempted with a purchased account or not, it is not the forum's job to warn others about potential scams. The fact that a purchased account was paid for would make it less likely that someone would want to scam with it unless there is a very good chance the scam will be successful and the scammer will be able to scam for more then what the account was purchased for. If you know how much a specific user's "trust" is worth in a general sense then you can be reasonably certain they will not attempt to scam for less of amounts.

There are also several legit reasons as to why people wish to purchase accounts (primarily signature campaigns). If you were to attempt to ban or police account sales then the percentage of account sales for legit reasons would go significantly down and people will malicious intentions would purchase accounts off forum, and have the purchase include VPN accounts that were previously used to connect to the forum with the account (making it appear the account was not sold). This will result in more scams involving sold accounts and a false sense of security that the account you are dealing with has not been sold.

If you were to say that you were not aware that account sales are allowed then that is your own fault for not knowing the rules of the forum that you are using.

I agree. Increasing prices of art is likely a sign that people with a lot of money do not have any/many places to invest their money so they "invest" in something they can look at and enjoy.

The fact that the art market is especially opaque makes it more likely that someone will not be getting a good deal, bubble or not

Unless you are paying him (or offering to pay him) to correct your spelling errors there is no reason for him to fix them.

As for your logic in your article, I strongly disagree. The people that are investing in bitcoin and people that are investing in the alibaba IPO have different risk tolerances and therefore are likely different investors (using different money)

You are trolling haha. The announcement thread was self moderated, and the initial announcement was cross posted here. There is no reason to have to monitor and respond to posts on two different threads.
I don't think an identity would prove anything. IMO the programmer would likely deny creating the code as it would open him up to civil liability from dicebitco.in and potential criminal liability. They wish to stay anon and will likely not give up that anon just to feed the trolls

Hopefully you will end up with something more then a life lesion out of this, however I don't think you will. Law enforcement unfortunately does not have the resources to conduct a through investigation of crimes of this magnitude