Not in the credits or licensing, but places where things to ATI are referenced like where it says to review ATI privacy policy and any links to the ATI website and such should be removed before the next release.

If the Armory name is dropped and another is chosen, the logo will also have to be changed as well.

Well it does now after I have pointed out your hipocrisy 

Coinbase has been reinstated on the website for quite some time.

Bitcoin.org doesn't provide links to those wallets, probably because of their hard forking stuff which goes against their hard fork policy: https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy. And before you argue that it is not a contentious hard fork, if it wasn't so contentious, then why all the debate?

Since it is pretty clear that you are the administrator of that site or have direct communication with the administrators, I have a few nits about the links. Bitcoin.org belongs under related links as it provide information for Bitcoin in general. Bitcoincore.org is Bitcoin Core's website now.

Also, if you are so against censorship, then bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin should be under related as those two places are related and are places that people are active and get information.

Neither. Deleting any of the block files will result in a full reindex, which although faster than a resync, still can take a significant amount of time.

Those transactions are using bare multisig, which blockchain.info is labeling as escrow. Bare multisig is the script of a p2sh address (a "normal" multisig address) except it is not an address and that script is placed in the output script.

Usually these are spam transactions for encoding data into the blockchain as few people actually use bare multisig for multisig transactions nowadays.

bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org don't censor anything, those are informational websites, not discussion websites like reddit and this forum.

And if they are so against censorship, then why are they censoring Bitcoin Core from that website?

Because they are for Bitcoin Core which they obviously are against (it was previously XTNodes.com, so you know who they are biased towards). Just like how Bitcoin Core isn't even linked or mentioned there at all excepted for their counts.

This clearly does not show all of the different node implementations. It misses the other full node implementations that are listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330770.0

This isn't mining software, and ASICs won't work for this. This is not the application that ASICs are designed for.

You should enable issues on Github, it's in the settings.

Also, I think anything mentioning ATI in the software should be removed, both because ATI is no longer supporting it, and for licensing stuff.

IMO Bitcoinocracy, consider.it, and every other voting platform out there to get people's opinion are terrible polls and are vulnerable to many different sources of bias.

They are all volunteer samples, so really it will only get people who care very strongly one way or the other to actually respond. You aren't going to get the opinion of the average bitcoin user but rather of people strongly in favor or strongly against. It isn't representative of what the population really thinks and thus it isn't consensus

Those platforms are vulnerable to sybil attacks, though Bitcoinocracy less so. People can make multiple fake accounts and thus submit fake votes making one option more popular than it really is. Bitcoinocracy combats that by requiring that people sign messages with addresses so it really is based on how many coins. But that gives unequal weighting to the votes, although I suppose that is a better representation of the economic majority.

The questions asked in those polls are not without bias. The way that the questions are phrased typically imply one meaning or the other, kind of making people want to vote one way or the other. The questions should instead be neutral and bias free to get the most unbiased responses. Also, the questions should provide information for people to read about what those changes are actually for and how they will work so that people actually know what they are voting for. The information should of course be unbiased, but that information is not available in the polls.

In any scientific study, just having one of the above biases would invalidate the entire study. Therefore, since any online voting platform has those biases in them, the entire voting thing and checking those sites for the supposed consensus is invalid and thus should not be considered or referenced when discussing consensus among the population.

There is nothing stopping a miner from doing that. However, considering that that miner would likely need to be a pool operator to get the necessary hash power to produce blocks at a rate to support that business, it probably won't happen. Miners simply wouldn't choose to join that pool so they can't actually do anything. Otherwise the cost to get enough equipment and hash power would be massive.

Here is a site for the project that I put together using Github Pages: https://achow101.github.io/BitcoinArmory/. It uses Jekyll (which github recommends using) and Github Pages as the hosting. The code is at https://github.com/achow101/BitcoinArmory/tree/gh-pages and if someone can get a domain, that domain can also be pointed to the site so it uses the domain. Let me know what you think about it.

The releases is really easy to use. Click on the Releases tab in the github repo and then click on the tag (the name of the tag is a link) you want (in this case 0.93.3). Then click the button to edit the tag and drag and drop the binaries into the box where it says the binaries are. If you want to add a message that goes with the release, type it into the textbox. When you are done click publish release.

Yes. protocol.cpp and protocol.h has stuff there with the p2p messages and main.cpp and main.h has stuff related to receiving and handling network messages.

You should also look at the documentation about the p2p network on bitcoin.org: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#p2p-network

goatpig, I think you should grab the tags from etotheipi's repo and then upload the 0.93.3 release to github so that the latest versions are in a place that you have control over so that if ATI goes offline for some reason, the latest release is still available until 0.94 is finished.

To open your wallet, just go to the website and tap on the link to the wallet and login.

What exactly is the issue that you are having with that?

Just a thought:

Couldn't you just host the releases on Github using the release function? Just tag the releases and then upload the corresponding binaries for that release and tell people to download the binaries from there.

Also, github pages could be utilized to set up a website for the open source project. A project site could be set up using github pages and it would all be hosted by github for free. In announcements text file could be kept there and armory could pull the announcement from there.

If we go with that option, I could help as I have experience with setting up all of that stuff for github, although when it comes to web design and development you will need to get other people to help. Thankfully the github pages thing actually makes making a website there really easy.

And how does logging it on the blockchain prevent proof anymore than a normal database?

Just logging it on the blockchain means absolutely nothing and it takes up space. In fact, it is probably more dangerous. A name in the blockchain means nothing. There is literally nothing that is different about having it in the blockchain than a database because to both, names mean nothing. A person could make up millions of fake names and cast millions of fake votes. It is up to the machine operators to prevent that. Even worse, on the blockchain, once someone figures out the format that the votes are being recorded in, they could burn a couple coins and screw up the vote. That could be prevented with encryption, but knowing the government, that isn't going to happen. There is no magic fraud protection that happens by simply logging it in the blockchain.

I don't know, but it isn't related to this. This issue is specifically about Bitcoin, not blockchain.info. It is essentially about the protocol and how Bitcoin transactions work. The double spending is something in Bitcoin, not blockchain.info.

The question was already answered in his other thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1351758.msg13767362#msg13767362.

tl;dr there was a double spend in the transaction chain so it now it will never confirm.

And how do you vote with the blockchain?

Just because the blockchain makes everything public and cryptographically secure from being changed doesn't mean that it is fraud proof. Seriously, think about your statement for a little bit.

An address is not publicly associated with an identity, therefore a person could create multiple addresses and pose as multiple people. A name means nothing if not tied and proven to be with a specific identity, so a name in a special transaction means nothing.