Look at your chart again.  They money that you are talking about is not used as money.  It is checking accounts in the fed's computer, which is only useful when a bank writes a check to another bank.  A bank can't go to the fed and ask the teller for a cash withdrawal from your reserve account.*  If you took away everything else, there would be nothing.  Literally every dollar actually used for commerce is outside of that box.

I don't know how much more plainly I can say it.  The stuff that you consider to be money is not, in reality, used as money.

Also, you are still clinging to the mistaken notion that the fed needs to make money first, so that commercial banks can multiply it.  That is still nonsense.  Banks makes loans first, and then buy or borrow reserves from the fed.  Not only is this obvious once you understand how the system works, it has also been observed empirically.

*  Yes, I know, trucks full of cash actually do drive around the country dropping off and picking up.  First, that is a pittance, relatively speaking.  And second, cash is just a token used to transfer the real money around.  (If you took away the cash, the system would be fine, but if you took away the system, the cash would be worthless.)

So, you probably won't believe me if I tell you that the first bitcoin ASIC was developed like 2 years ago, by one guy.  Right?

I was going to add that {transactionhash,blockheight} needs special handling for reorgs, but really, all of these do anyway.

Note that other than the series of identical generate transactions, or spending one of the same, making a duplicate transactionhash is effectively impossible.

In one of the several other threads discussing this exact same topic, I argued that it is best to use an algorithm that is simple enough for casual people to implement (as an ASIC) with a modest budget.

At least 4 groups now have implemented bitcoin mining as an ASIC, in (relatively) short times, with (relatively) little capital.  More are sure to follow.

If some algorithm can be done on a general purpose computer, then a special computer can be made which can do it better (by whatever measure of better).  The question really comes down to "How much effort (time and/or capital) does it take for how much of an improvement?"

Picking a hard algorithm like scrypt doesn't mean that there won't ever be an ASIC for it, it just means that developing that ASIC will be harder, which means that different people will be doing it.

We want ASIC development to be possible for kids in their garages, and it would be extremely foolish to lock them out of the game.  Even more foolish when you consider that we are incapable of barring more powerful entities from doing it anyway.

{blockhash,index} is unique.  As would be {blockhash,transactionhash} or even {transactionhash,blockheight}.

Except that your chart is nonsense.

In your view, the stuff that is not used as money is money, while the stuff that is used as money is not money.  If we agreed to accept your contorted view, you would be right, but then there would be no point in the discussion, because no one gives a fuck about not-money.

Your chart also suffers from the flaw that you are reading it from the top to the bottom, when reality happens from the bottom up.  Lending happens first.  Reserves are found later, usually by borrowing against the new note.

I didn't convince you that you were wrong about this.  The quotes from central bankers and economists at the beginning of the video didn't convince you that you were wrong either.

I think we are all just going to have to accept that you are always going to be wrong about how money is created.

Sure, just set up some PKI and require that blocks be valid, and signed by a key that was signed by the central CA.

Ever read Cryptonomicon?  I'm imagining The Dentist is behind this, or rather, his real-world counterparts.

Holy shit!  1021 operations per second!  You weren't kidding about the 1980 Casio watch!

The short answer is, don't.  Whatever need you think you have for multiple wallets, you are probably wrong, and there is a better way.  At least for now; this is a common request, and the software may very well support this in the future, or other clients might already do it today.

If you must, the safest way is to run two instances in different directories.

There could in theory be a bug, but none are known so far.  If your node knows a UTXO and has enough keys to redeem it, it gets listed in listunspent.

In and out aren't concepts that really apply here.

Gox does not appear to have breached F.1, so liquidated damages do not apply.  That pretty much just leaves actual damages, which are, at best, a pittance, relatively speaking.  Note that the agreement is mostly concerned with future income.

Haters gotta hate.

Doesn't really matter what happens, the people that have been talking shit about the foundation since September just keep doing their thing.

We get it.  We really do.  You still don't like the foundation.  Good for you.  Now go fuck yourself.  At least the foundation supporters aren't spamming the forums with endless troll threads.

The local bank's interaction with the fed creates a soft limit, not a hard one.  Small and simple examples don't show the real picture, because it isn't just you, the bank and the fed.  There are thousands of other banks, and millions of other people.

What makes you think that the bank has to "have" $900 somewhere in your example?  Where is that $900 stored?  Physical tokens in the vault?  In their computer?  No.  And also clearly not in the central bank's computer.*

Banks have two kinds of "real" money.  They have physical tokens of money (dollar bills) and central bank deposits (reserve accounts at the fed).  They usually have a truck show up daily to either pick up excess tokens, or to bring more tokens, and all they really need are enough to service local demand, which is usually a tiny little fraction of the non-physical business at the bank.  As to reserve accounts, they can borrow from other banks or directly from the fed.

What really limits the local bank is that the auditors verify that they have enough on reserve on a regular basis.  And since reserves are so easy to get, they are effectively never out of compliance with their reserveholding requirements.  Banks fail when their books get out of whack, not when their vaults run empty.

*  Well, at least I hope it is clear.  Clearing and settlement is done on a net basis.  It would be silly for the bank to need $1000 in their reserve account, and then withdraw $900 to make the loan, leaving a 10% reserve.  First, how would the withdrawal work?  Second, what would stop the bank from redepositing whatever fraction of the loan doesn't leave that day and loaning out 90% again?

The payment protocol in the works will take care of some of this.

Addresses themselves can't be revoked.  We could do it, but only at a terrible cost.  I will leave the consequences to your imagination.

Even if everyone votes that cats are dogs, that won't make it so.

Surely you see the difference.  Selling an account is one thing.  Selling a bank is a whole 'nother story.

The other thread on this got moved.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193888.0;all

I'm still reading, but so far, it looks like the suit will likely be tossed.  The contract will likely be nullified.

Your bank, brokerage, etc, etc, can't just sell your account to someone else, and a contract to do so would not be valid.  There are complicated hoops that you have to jump through for that.