Really?  Not forgetting anything?   The casual way you treat the idea of people sending you sensitive KYC type info (the same info valued by identity thieves) is a deal killer.

Sure maybe if you were an registered company and posted a $100K Surety Bond, had private dedicated servers, a competent team well trained in handling sensitive information.  Essentially what you are describing is a certificate authority (CA).   Trying to do it, half-assed, on the cheap is a good way to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people.

Its called profit.  Did you expect he would sell at cost? Does any store sell at cost?

It has nothing to do with the average user not knowing scientific notation it is the utter stupidity of using it in this circumstance.  It would be like writing speed limit sign as "SPEED LIMIT: 6.0 x10^1 MPH".

There are two characteristics which make it pointless.
a) the range of possible values for a wallet balance are well known and "relatively" small.  The smallest account balance is 0.00000001 BTC and the largest (eventually) is 21,000,000.0 BTC.  It isn't like trying to express a 256bit number which is cumbersome to express in standard notation.

b) generally speaking users want to know their EXACT balance, not an estimate.  So take a user with the balance of 0.12345678 BTC.   To express it in standard notation requires 10 characters.  To express it accurately in scientific notation (1.23456789E-8 BTC) requires  requires 13 characters.  So it is longer and less user friendly.  If the site is rounding balances well that just makes it even more confusing and will lead to other problems.

It is user unfriendly and serves no purpose.  My guess is it isn't intentional by the operator.

You do realize that +16,000 is within the margin of error right.   16,000 deviation on 2 billion flips is 0.0008% of expected.   Trying running it 10 billion, or a trillion, or a quadrillion you will notice the deviation will continue to shrink as a % of the expected.  In other words as there are more and more trials the actual outcome approaches the expected outcome.

Expected Outcome is called that because it is EXPECTED but you rarely will ever hit it EXACTLY (i.e. actual outcome = expected outcome) as an ironic twist of math as the same size gets larger the actual outcome will approach the expected outcome HOWEVER the odds that it will be exactly equal to the expected outcome decrease.

This is easy to observe:
2 flips.  expected outcome = 1 heads.   Odds of actual outcome matching expected outcome = 2 out of 4 combinations (50%)
4 flips. expected outcome = 2 heads.   Odds of actual outcome matching expected outcome = 4 out of 16 combinations (25%)

Which is why I said you can overcome that by requiring the "entry" = move to be in the winning block or a prior block (unconfirmed entries can't win").  Not sure if you missed that.   If the entries has to be in the current or prior block then the winning block can't be computed before making an entry.

Why the hell would strongcoin use scientific notation?  I can't think of any possible method which would be less user friendly.
Even putting it in mBTC or uBTC would be easier for the average user.

You can't start after an event and consider that part of the random set.

i.e.
Either starting at 1,000 he has equally chance of winning or losing.  Expected outcome is 1,000 for an any number of flips going forward.

If he ALREADY (as in the past) lost 2 and only has 998 chips then 998 chips becomes the starting point and he has an equal chance of winning or losing and 998 is the expected outcome for any number of flips going forward. 

if he is starting with 998 and wants to acheive 1,000 coins he is looking to gain two.  then the odds of that ARE going to be less than zero.   Lets take this to the logical extreme.  Say he played his game until he had lost all but 2 chips.   Now say from this point he plays until he either loses all chips or gets back to 1,000.  The odds of that are <1%.  Would you say the odds of having break even or better on a coin flip are <1%?  Of course not.  The odds are only so low because he is trying to turn 2 chips into 1,000 chips.  What happened BEFORE he ended up at 2 chips is irrelivent.  The coins don't "know" he originally started at 1,000 and lost it down to 2.  The odds going forward are exactly the same as any other fair coin flip.

You are provided a new address on each deposit but they don't replace older addresses.  Once assigned to your account a deposit address is good even if newer ones are also assigned. (i.e. if you used 100 different deposit addresses they are all assigned to your account and they are all still valid).

It isn't.  


You are merely observing the effect of a small sample size.  First your number of wins shouldn't be exactly half.  Due to the house odds it should be slightly less than half (the 0 & 00 numbers).  The fact that it was exactly half was just conicidental.  You simply won less of the larger wagers and more of the smaller wagers.  Had the reverse been true would you believe you found a method to always beat the house?  If you played for quadrillions upon quadrillions of spins and had infinite amount of money to lose your expected loss =  (house odds) x (total amount bet).  The more you play the more it aproaches this value, in the short term there can be anomoloies.  Note: a hundred spins isn't statistically valid.  Try doing 100,000 spins or more.


Your penny scenario is equally flawed because you assume you will lose on the first trial.  What if you win, or win 30 times in a row.  By simply looking at only the scenario's which begin below break even obviously your expected outcome will always be below breakeven.  Once you lost to 998 going forward your expected gain is 0 and thus 998 is the break even.  The coin has no memory that in the past you lost a bet and thus are "owed" one extra win.

You can simulate your penny game rather easily in software using a random number generator.  You have it flip trillions of times and try every possible betting combination you can think of.  In the end total return would be 0 (+/- margin of error).

In theory yes depending on how you will use it.   The right x digits of the blockhash are random and the only way to produce a block with a different hash would be by brute force (throwing away non-matching ones).  Given each thrown away block is worth 50 BTC that is a large barrier for most prizes.  If the prize was 1,000,000 BTC you might need to reconsider.

The one area where a miner could cheat without it "costing" anything would be to generate entries until they find one which matches a block they already solved and them submit the block.   You can avoid this by requiring the entry to be in the "winning block" or prior block (i.e. unconfirmed entries can't win).

What makes you think they have what you want?

It seems you want peer reviewed benchmarked specs (hashrate, state rates, power consumption, temp, etc).   Nobody has a functional product yet.  How exactly would they provide something which doesn't exist?

As others have said wait until launch and you will see.   To the more general questions ... That info is unecessary at this point.  The pre-order buyers have already taken a risk.  Getting proof after committing to a sale is kinda foolish.   ANyone who doesn't have a pre-order is better off waiting.  Why?  Pre-ordering now is the worst of risk vs reward.  You get the lowest reward (it may be months before your order ships and difficulty will be >200M by then) and are taking the most risk.   At this point, waiting until they ship doesn't significantly reduce ones reward but significantly reduces the risk.

Proof of work and hashcash are not Bitcoin.  Bitcoin uses a proof of work but it also uses hashing algorithms like SHA-256 which was released in 2001.  Saying you knew about Bitcoin is 2004 because proof of work existed would be like saying you knew about Bitcoin in 2001 because you had heard of the SHA algorithm.

Bitcoin "began" at the end of 2008 or begining of 2009 depending on what date you want to consider the "start".  Satoshi' paper was published in October 2008 and the open source project started on source forge about a month after that.  The genesis block (block #0) was produced on 01/03/2009 @ 18:15:05 GMT.  The 0.1 version of the reference client released roughly a week later (01/11/2009).  

You didn't know about Bitcoin in 2004.  You couldn't mine Bitcoins in 2004.  

Exactly but lets pretend you could win every false dispute with PayPal.  What about genuinely hacked accounts, identity theft accounts (accounts created and verified without the true owners knowledge), people who bypass PayPal and chargeback their card directly, etc?   The idea that you can take a reversible system, and via some magical set of properties make all those different forms of fraud impossible, is a pipe dream.  It is the bitcoiners equivalent of the philosopher's stone.

FYPFY.


Nothing in the OP even is remotely close to making any sense.

Just a bunch of nonesense.

"valid BitCoin integer" - there is no such thing. 
'algorithm dictionary search'  - if it was possible to compute SHA256 hashes faster than brute force that would be the largest cryptographic news of the decade.  The OP could create a white paper and be published in just about any academic journal on the topic.
'server cloud that is dedicated to mining new coins much faster than a lone machine' - meaningless.  I have two rigs which are ..... <DRUMROLL> 200% faster than a single rig.  Actually I have a rack of 6 rigs which are 600% faster than a single rig.  Have I discovered some unknown Bitcoin algorithm?


The algorithm the OP discovered is called stealing a few BTC.

Except the OP says 15-20 charecters.   If one knows the base word(s) how is the length unknown.  I mean password is always 8 charecters regardless of if it is PassworD or p@ssWORD.

As I posted above if the OP keeps trying to play "super secret squirrel" and including half truths and misinformation it makes any chance of a recovery exactly 0%.   The algorithm and search methods which need to be used will depends on what info is known, what is unknown, and what is partially known.

If you do know the EXACT password ending (other than case) and it is 15 characters then trying all case combinations will require:
2^15 = 32,768 permutations (trivially easy).

If there are spaces mixed in then it becomes 3^15 = 14348907 (still easy)

If there are say 2 substitutions (P@ssw0rd) in addition to unknown case then it starts to get more complex especially if the passphrase has lots of potential substitutions.  max of 5^15 = 1073741824 (doable depending on how many rounds the client used but starting to take real time)

If it is more complex (say 4+ substitutions, spaces, extra symbols intermixed, root word unknown or multiple possible combinations) it quickly escalates to impossible.

Remember just because Revalin script worked on a relatively short password with a few typos doesn't mean there are enough seconds left in your life for it to work on a very long one with lots of combinations.

Things like this " it's the last 15-20 characters I need to bruteforce." indicate you don't know the exact password suffix.  So which is it?  The suffix is 15-20 charecters or you know EXACTLY how long the unknown portion is and the root word(s) used to construct it? 


BTW: at this point being "stealthy" is likely to be a complete waste of time.   Give people willing to help EXACTLY what you know and what you don't know.  It will allow them to give you better chances and provide better advice and/or algorithm selection.   Being uber "secure" is partially what got you into this mess and trying to obfuscate and provide limited info may result in you never cracking the passphrase.

FYPFY

Not really different than getting caught in any other type of tax evasion.

Bitcoin is simply a set of rules agreed to by consensus you can change anything.  You could make the blockreward 500,000 BTC per block tomorrow.  You could make the block reward 500,000 BTC per block retroactive back to the very first block.  Both changes would require at most a couple dozen lines of code and maybe a weekend worth of coding (including testing).

However anytime the protocol changes unless 100% of users (not 100% of just miners, but 100% of all nodes installed, all exchanges, all merchants, all bitcoin owners, all client developers, etc) there will be a fork in the network.

Some % of the network will continue to use the old code and some % will use the newer incompatible code.  Unless a change has nearly unanimous support or rejection a split like that could be very damaging as both forks could continue to exist independently however they would be incompatible.  Imagine two protocols both calling themselves Bitcoin, both very similar but completely incompatible.  Imagine you are on fork A but your friend is on fork B.  He sends you some coins but those coins aren't seen as valid on fork A so you never "get them" (at least not of fork A) but from his point of view he did send them (just to the same address on fork B).  Now imagine neither side is willing to drop the name Bitcoin ("we are the real Bitcoin").  Some merchants accept Bitcoin-A, some accept Bitcoin-B.  Some sloppily don't indicate the compatible fork so merchant-A gets paid orders paid with Bitcoin-B Bitcoins that the merchant can't see but the customer can't get back.

Of course such a scenario is unlikely to happen because the results are known to be chaotic.  Any such change will get minimal support and die a quite death.   The fixed supply is part of the social contract.  Bitcoin users join Bitcoin voluntarily and do so based on the information that is known (including the fixed supply).  Changing that decades later would be a huge blow the confidence in the network.   I would go so far as to say it is immoral, it changing the contract after the fact and STEALING (yes STEALING) from existing users.  So can it be changed?  Sure.  Is it likely to ever be changed (a year from now, a decade, a century)?  No.   Of course if you feel it is so important to have coins never stop minting then simply make a fork of Bitcoin call it "Inflat-a-coin" or something like that and if it is popular enough someday it will displace Bitcoin.

TL/DR version:
If you can change the minting rate once you can change it again, and again, and again, and again. Anytime inflation is changed there are winners and losers.  So if people accept such changes and you can benefit from a change in inflation you should keep changing it over and over and over.   The confiscation of wealth via inflation is probably the most powerful concept in the enslavement of modern man.   I would hope that most people would have no faith in such a system where the rules can be changed to the benefit of some at the expense of others and reject it outright. 

Created, signed by company key, and uploaded to MIT keyserver:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x3644A235B778DA6C

Fingerprint: 2D10 4B36 8450 0585 18B4  960D 3644 A235 B778 DA6C