Your contribution to the effort.

Hmm. I've used CampBX for some time, though I've not been active there for a quarter or two. Never had an issue there. I have some piddling assets thereupon. I may wait it out, hoping for more concrete info from the proprietors.

Stop talking like that - you'll confuse Billy and Sally Applepie.

That could be an interesting discussion. If a contract dispute makes it to trial, it is likely not over whether or not one of the parties has signed a document, it is more likely that the dispute is over interpretation of the document. How can the blockchain add any value to this form of dispute resolution?

Hmm. You heard. From whom did you hear this? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know where you are getting your data, but the HALT results that I have seen disagree with your general assertion.

See my sig.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/evphosted-14e0b6c2d234b6/nuclear_war_survival_skills_book_pdf_file.pdf

Seriously.

I can assure you that the march toward higher areal densities continues unabated.

ETA: How long have 6TB HDDs been shipping again?

Just. Stop.

Let me spool off rant # 34...

'Kilo' has _never_ been 1024. It has _always_ been 1000. All official standards organizations on the face of the planet (ANSI, ISO, IEC, BSA, NIST, ...) are united on this concept.

Mega has never meant 1024*1024 nor 1000*1024. It has _always_ been exactly 1,000,000.

Giga has never meant 2^30. It has always been 10^9.

And so on.

Lazy folk have perpetrated this mischaracterization so pervasively that the standards organizations needed to invent new units:

Kibi (Ki) - 2^10
Mebi (Mi) - 2^20
Gibi (Gi) - 2^30
Tebi (Ti) - 2^40
Pebi (Pi) - 2^50
and so on...

There is nothing misleading about saying '1PB = 1,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes'. It is misleading to say anything else.

If you want a shorthand way of saying 1*1024*1024*1024*1024*1024, you can say '1 PiB' (pronounced pebbee-byte). But you cannot say '1 PB' - because that is flat out incorrect.

Color me stunned. After all the factual info here in this thread about why this is a bad idea, you don't 'think' flags are raised? I don't believe you're thinking at all.

This is a special sort of activity for which the regulators are on alert. At least here in the land of the formerly free and the home of the cowed. They deem it important enough that they have their own pet term for it (structuring? - don't remember). But finagling your financial transactions in a way to purposely skirt the limits in place is also considered criminal, and earns you a special spot on their hit list.

Does this suck? In my mind yes. Is it fair? In my mind no. But this is the world in which we live.

If you want to play Amerikan roulette in this manner, then I guess that is your right. But please don't drag others to the gulag due to your ignorance.

... and trigger a SAR for obvious attempt to mislead the regulators. Not a good plan.

You'll need to make a determination how friendly your bank is to bitcoin. If friendly, then just carry on - because you are not doing anything illegal nor immoral. If, however, your bank is, or may become, antagonistic toward bitcoin, then now is the time to start shopping around for a better bank.

Redundant poll is redundant. The masses have already voted with their dollars (and rubles, yuan, cruzeiros ...). The results are tabulated at coinmarketcap.com .

edit: damn autocorrect

protip: just because something is visible at blockchain.info, that something is not necessarily embedded in The Blockchain.

Done deal.

Bitcoin-Qt > Preferences > Display > 'Unit to show amounts in:' [ BTC | mBTC | uBTC ]

Hmmm. So if you've truly 'told what you know', then it is evident that you don't know jack shit either. I've read everything I could find that you have posted on the topic, and I still know nothing.

Now I am sure you are taking things out of context. If mining was done with, there could never again be another transaction verified. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

I can't help but think that you are taking this quote out of context. What does it mean to have 'too many' miners? Apart from the fact that it causes each such miner to reap less bitcoin, I see no downside. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. No systemic issue from 'too many' miners.

Sorry. Didn't think I was being uncivil. I thought I was being direct in drawing analogy to the examples you provided. I answered your questions in what I thought was the most useful manner possible. I never called you any name, nor maligned your intelligence.

Methinks you are being awfully thin-skinned here.

Funny how your response included nothing about how closely my response matched up with your question.

Just no. The pound is no longer a pound. It is now a fiat currency. Accordingly, the fact that there is still something called the pound in monetary use, cannot be used as an example of a fiat currency lasting a long time.