Next few dividend payments also likely to be bumped up:

A more pessimistic way of looking at it:
On current revenues, each share will return 0.0002 BTC per month, or 0.0024 per year.
Cryptostocks charges a fee of 0.01 BTC ($1.80) per withdrawal.
So if you only withdraw once per year, if you bought 10 shares, you would earn 0.024, but pay 0.01 in fees.
To get the fee loss below 5%, you'd need to buy 80 shares.
If revenue increases to 1000 BTC per month (which is pretty optimistic), your 10 shares would earn 0.24, and you would pay ~4% in fees.
But unless there is something else on Cryptostocks you are happy to invest in, that means leaving your returns sitting doing nothing all year.

TR;DL: 0.01 BTC per withdrawal is a pretty punitive fee, and a discouragement to smaller investors.
(Although oddly it looks like you could change to LTC first and transfer out at only about 10% of the fee?)

Shrug.
Either way, there are a bunch of shitcoins out there which serve no purpose whatsoever except to make a limited circle of insiders profit.
If multipools hasten their demise, while other, more valuable, coins survive, that seems like a positive benefit to the altcoin scene as a whole.

And the project can pay to host its own full archive node to make sure all transactions are kept.

They've done the upgrade, and still have issues.
They are charging fees for their services, and trying to sell shares in themselves, they should be held to a business standard, not a hobbist one.
And for the last few weeks, the service has been very poor. I don't think there has been a single run of 2-3 days where trading and/or deposits weren't frozen at at least one point.

Last 20 blocks on coinmine:

Seems to be fine at the moment, and the pool is finding most of the blocks (20 of the last 21!), at about 1/min.
Edit: I don't know of any way to see pool history back further than that, but my auto-payments seem to have continued at about the same rate they've always been. Are you sure the pool has actually been down? If you got some example times (and timezone) when you couldn't connect, I can check my transaction history to see if I was still connected then.

Evolution in action. The multipools are predators, if the alt-coins can't adapt, they die.
There is absolutely no reason for 90% of them to exist in the first place, other than for devs and those who mine in the first few days to make money on the initial dump anyway. If multipools can kill most of them off, it might actually leave enough space for some of the others to survive.

What does any of that have to do with the provision of driving insurance in the UK?


This sub-thread is about needing insurance to drive on public roads, see the bolded bits of the message I responded to. Since you agree with that, what exactly are you arguing about?
It has nothing to do with US healthcare.

There are a large number of different insurance providers, so how can there be a monopoly?
And yes, you need to have third party insurance to drive on public roads, and a good thing too.

As I said:

You don't even think it is possible that the NHS could actually be delivering a good service, do you?

And what if the first transaction isn't confirmed prior to that message?

I'd say it also consists of people who are convinced that any socialised system (of anything) is "bad"
And the current implementation in the US seems to be a messy half and half system.
If you think that systems like the NHS 'work', a large reason for it is that they are single payer systems.
They cut out the middleman of the HMOs, who add nothing to the actual provision of care, and can achieve levels of discounts that individual smaller payers couldn't. The current US model doesn't really seem to do anything to remove HMOs from the equation, so will continue to be wasteful.

And what I've been saying has very clearly been that I am happier with what I have than with what you have. That isn't at all the same as saying that you should get what I have. You can't simply transplant something between two very different societies, in terms of political views, and expect it to work.
In the UK, the majority of people support the NHS, and believe in the state provision of healthcare, that simply isn't true in the US.
Recent governments in the UK have been increasingly trying to water down the socialist aspects of the NHS and introduce more US-style markets, and polling shows that people disapprove of those changes. I don't think a true socialised system could ever be introduced to the US, firstly for the more cynical reason that there is simply too much money being made in the current system, but at a more basic level because most Americans don't seem to support that level of government provision.
On a different hot-button issue, I'm very glad I live in a country with no right to gun ownership. That doesn't mean I think you could simply ban all guns in the US and get the same result.

No, just that it will be good or bad, as with most other things.
The contradiction of 'All state-run things are AWFUL' is not 'All state-run things are GREAT', it is 'Some state-run things are not AWFUL'.
Peoples' experiences of the NHS will vary based on where they are in the country, and what services they are using.
I'm in a reasonably affluent suburb, and I have had good experiences. My guess is that those two are correlated, and that if I was in a poor inner-city area my experiences wouldn't be as good.


And some people have had good experiences with police in democratic countries. Others have not had good experiences with them.


And what is it called when you just parrot political rhetoric?
How does it advance the discussion more than just 'Four legs good, two legs bad'?

Surely all you are doing is reducing the risk of double spends to 1/10th of the account value, you aren't actually removing the risk of one happening, just the benefit if it does?

What prevents:
1] Initiate first part of double-spend attack
2] Become special account
3] Use the account for instant transaction

The merchant will accept the second transaction, because I am a 'special' account, but the first transaction is also out there waiting to be confirmed.

And if that was what he had said, I would agree.
It wasn't.
He said nothing about having bad experiences with the NHS, just knee-jerk political philosophy that anything state-run must, by definition, be awful.

Laugh.
The free market is constrained by it being illegal.

I must be misunderstanding you.
It is already a requirement in the UK to have car insurance if driving on public roads.

Wow, that is a real pot calling the kettle black.


You don't understand what the word monopoly means.
There are private healthcare providers in the UK. The NHS can therefore not have a monopoly.


I see, so I should ignore my own actual experiences with the NHS, and instead just accept your blindly parroted philosophical objections?


Yes, because we can see that has worked so well in the US, can't we?
The US free market approach results in a far higher proportion of GDP spent on healthcare than the socialised systems in Europe.

Again, many of the posts in this thread about about banks closing or warning about personal accounts.
Don't use a personal account for business, don't get warned.