I chickened out and bought back in at 650.  I still think it's going to go down further, but now, just as you said, I hope it doesn't.

I honestly don't get the weirdos who freak out any time someone suggests (rightly or wrongly) that the price is about to correct, as if they're attacking Bitcoin itself.  Get over it, people.  It goes up and down.  People will discuss that.

People will also profit by predicting the dips and booms correctly.  Laugh at them if they lose, if you're into schadenfreude.  Cheer them if they win, because they deserved to.  But don't act like someone just shot your goddamn dog because they speculate.

Thank you for what looks like an excellent solution to a future problem that has troubled me for a while about BTC.  I honestly don't have the brains to analyze it, but just wanted to say thanks.  This kind of work is the road to the future of cryptocurrencies, and it is great that people are doing it.

Jeez, people.  Do you not understand that interest is haram (forbidden) in Islam?  That is the whole point of establishing such a bank.

Offering interest to a Muslim is like offering a ham sandwich to him.

I think that has a lot more to do with specific implementation difficulties Baidu was having, and lack of interest among its particular customer base.  These preceded the bank news.

Is this bank stuff an issue?  Of course.  I just don't think it's as much of an issue as you think.

Ask a jury.

Very agreed on that, and in fact sold before the China news.  I thought the event was overdue, and while the China news could have set off what was already going to happen, I really think its effect is exaggerated.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, and while there is some tenuous causal connection between the two events, it really just affected the timing.

I think it's probably going to go further down as well, but bought back in anyway because I don't like cutting things close.  I'd rather sacrifice some (potential) profit to avoid risk (and so that I can sleep at night again while the ticker goes berserk instead of waking up like a lunatic to stare at my phone for updates every 10 minutes).

Like the last one, and the one before that?  I suppose it does have a chance to do that, sort of like I have a chance to guess at random a brainwallet passphrase that gets me all of DPR's buried loot.

Actually deliberately posting it here would be an implicit invitation to add it to a wallet just to see what's in it.  For example, the "correct horse battery staple" brainwallet passphrase used as an example.  (Don't actually add it to a wallet because it is so constantly flooded with transactions that it can easily crash your client.)

Posting a private key with funds in it is basically yelling "Hey here's some money, and I'm leaving it here while I go away!"  That may make the inevitable thief still guilty of something, but good luck getting any sympathy from a jury.

If, however, someone obtained the private key illegally, such as with a keylogger or by finding the Post-It note where you left it under your desk, even if that is almost equally stupid, obviously they don't possess the BTC.  I assume OP meant by "possession" what is often meant legally by the term, that is, legitimate possession.  (Even a thief, though, is actually in "possession" of a stolen item and a drug dealer "possesses" illegal drugs even though the law recognizes no ownership right in such items.)

Kiss her with that mouth?  I'm sure he sucks "her" dick with that mouth.

No.  I want it to continue.  I hope it hits 400.

I heard from Support that Micon is taking over as the tournament manager.  So you can now bug him personally if you don't like it!

(I think he'll actually do a better job, since he's actually spent a lot of time in B&M poker tournaments as well as online.)

Then you were paying much less attention in high school than you should have.

Because all LSD shows you is your own perceptions and maybe the content of your own mind.  So if you started out an idiot, LSD isn't going to turn you into a genius.

It would be nice to have bets lower than a bitmill.  While the price is currently going down, that's still about $0.75.  As a fan of martingales (and the "let it ride" reverse martingale), I like to have more than 4 or 5 doubles before I go busto, so I like to start small.  A buck as a minimum bet diminishes the fun of this stupid -EV strategy.  Also, of the equally fun and equally stupid -EV strategy of trying to turn a tiny bet into a big win by letting it ride.

Agreed.  But if I were to pick a bank to be the first one that shows up, BoA is the absolute last I would want to be the first.  As bad actors go, they're the worst.

I'd prefer, say, Wells Fargo.

Do you mean confirmed?  Because that's listing as 39 confirmed.  No, it isn't normal.  But I've had it happen with Multibit and it's generally fixed by resetting blockchains and transactions under Tools.

Some throwaway thoughts on the replevin issue.  I'm not sure that's the appropriate remedy, particularly because of the inequity to innocent good faith purchasers.  Imagine this:  thief scams 10 BTC a couple years ago when it was worth much less.  Buys a number of trivial items for 1 BTC each.  Now, someone actually sleuths out who the thief is and where the money went.  It was to these ten merchants for a variety of $5 items.  The 1 BTC is worth $1,000 now.  To return that BTC (and the merchant probably could not return the actual BTC because that particular BTC is probably long-spent), the merchant would have to take a $995 bath.  Additionally, replevin requires the return of a specific item.  The merchant probably doesn't have this specific item any more.  Replevin can't require you to "return" an item you don't have, or substitute an item that just happens to be like it.

Additionally, the whole idea of boycotting particular BTC (basically destroying its value forever) would be considered breaking the protocol.  If there is something courts should not be encouraged to do, it is that.  Additionally, just as a matter of practicality, there are current technical proposals (specifically BIP 0032) that would render this kind of sleuthing much more difficult.  One pool (Eligius run by Luke-Jr) has recently started discouraging and de-prioritizing the kind of address reuse that would make going after merchants practical.  

Now, I agree that obviously, the thief is responsible to return the BTC, but I can't see a judgment ordering return in the form of a cryptocurrency.  How would the court administer such a thing and decide between conflicting claims when scammer claims he shipped and judgment creditor claims he didn't?  Expert testimony about BTC?  Costs money.  Lots of it.  Probably more than it's worth.

I think the plaintiff would be entitled to a money judgment in the form of the original money value of the BTC, plus something in the form of incidental and consequential damages (in a contract action), punitive damages if the conduct was particularly to be discouraged (and some other tort was involved), and otherwise.  Oh, and legal fees.  Because until you're getting into the million dollar territory, prosecuting the first few cases like this is going to be an uphill slog and require explaining highly technical subjects to 70 year old judges.

An action in the nature of trover also makes some sense, i.e. a verdict for the value of the lost commodity.  While arguably, BTC is identifiable rather than purely fungible, you could say that about actual cash, too.  It has serial numbers.  There's even a searchable database, as an example, of the serial numbers in the D.B. Cooper heist.  Money may be generally fungible, but in some cases, it can be identified as being particular stolen money.

While I understand why plaintiffs would desire to be able to go after merchants (since thieves are often judgment proof losers), especially for the current value of BTC they lost in scams which has since vastly appreciated in value, it would be grossly inequitable to the merchants, actual enforcement would be so disastrous to merchants that unless miners changed the protocol to make such a regime unenforceable (BIP 0032 would be a nice start), they would flee the market, and it would basically amount to a windfall for the plaintiffs.

There's no such offense at the federal level (though there may be something similar).  Even if there were, it would be unconstitutional, and probably state frequenting laws are unconstitutional as well.

I'm sure they could think of something, though.  Accuse you of money laundering and either actually prosecute you just for pissing them off, or try to pin some kind of liability on you for participating in a money laundering enterprise. 

OP would be well advised to consult a good lawyer with criminal drug and forfeiture experience.  It would be worth it to cultivate a contact now, in case the value of the BTC in question is actually worth pursuing it during the period where you can.

Yet another 10 post wonder who shows up and immediately knows everything just after getting out of the newbie cage.

Probably some troll we've seen before butthurt that he's on so many ignore lists nobody sees his posts.

Even as Banks go, BoA is particularly malevolent and corrupt.