You would think so, but that's not how the world works. What you are basically suggesting is that no fraud whatsoever can occur in the banking system because of how regulated it is because regulatory agencies can just reverse transactions. Take a look at history. It is ripe with thousands of cases of banking scams and fraud that were never recovered from. Especially when you are involving foreign banks, with foreign laws and regulations. There is so much red tape involved in getting such large wires reversed. Once the money is sent overseas, it's basically gone. Foreign banks will always put their account holders first, instead of taking orders from another banking institution outside of their country.

The only way such foreign banks would reverse transactions would be through a court order, from their country of residence. Wire Transfers may be traceable to account holders, but when you start involving multiple foreign countries and multiple unassociated accounts, the money is as good as gone. It can take YEARS to get effective court to get any kind of action, and by then the money is long gone, and likely is any evidence. Not to mention building a case and presenting evidence to the notion that there was fraud/scam involved, IN (possible multiple) foreign countries.

After you exceed more than 2 or 3 bank transfers beyond the initial fraud, that money will likely never be recovered. You'd be dealing with multiple parties/shell bank accounts. The party that is at the end, has nothing to do with the past 2 owners of the money. Can you imagine if someone spent a couple millions of dollars to your company, you gave them the product, they disappear with it, and then agencies try to take your money saying the 3rd to last owner stole it? There's no way on earth in any court system would get behind that.

The occupation is wanted by Greeks thyself. If they didn't taken all those money (credits) without thinking that are not their money and that one day must be returned back (even with interests) now it wouldn't be in all this mess. But they wanted to make the good life without thinking to much about from where come the money which gave them this kind of life and that to make that needed work and not credits. I would tell better: let's work begin. If they work hard had chances to be free again.

what the f... how on earth do you think bitcoin will reach 1 million per coin? the money has to come from somewhere. it would give bitcoin a market cap of 21,000,000,000,000 if all coins are mined  

Again, I wished we haven't told people about confirmations in the first place.
Trying a double spend for a coffee, is like forging one dollar bills. Who would do that?
Furthermore, paying with a credit card takes days to confirm, but nobody thinks about that, when he uses a credit card, but in the Bitcoin World we have the problem, that it is nerds who tell the normal people about how Bitcoin works, and nerds tend to confuse people with just to much details and people get the whole thing wrong.
You see, that even OP, who is a Legendary Member, got it all wrong.

In the grand scheme of things, this had little to do with bitcoin itself. Just another case of cyber and social security breached by combining social engineering with hacking. This could have just as easily been some wall street firm, or perhaps some precious metal company. It's a classic security breach. Bitpay is at fault for being hacked. Someone dealing with millions of dollars in cryptocurrency should have a little sense when visiting opening random documents/pages, even if from a trusted source. Quite a foolish move on bitpay's part.

I guess the most promising application of LN is where payments between entities are frequent and roughly predictable over the life of a channel. These might be BitPay<->Coinbase, but also it might be a man that routinely buys a cup of coffee somewhere in the morning, so setting up a channel between him and the cafe might make sense, especially because of near-instant 'confirmation'.

What you might be missing here is that all these channels can be chained together, forming a mesh-like network. In this case, you can have only one channel open, and send a payment to anyone in this network. This payment will be routed through intermediate hops right to the receiver.

The well-connected hops can be called hubs, and will receive a fee for their service. In theory, anyone can become a hub, it's only limited by how much BTC you have, i.e. how many channels can you fund with them.

So these people have no telephones to confirm these types of transactions? Everyone know email is the easiest platform to hack. How can they simply trust a email to transfer $2 000 0000 worth of Bitcoin? I hope a full investigation will be launched and some people will get fired for this.

I am a CPA and fully understand how tax law works for both entities and individuals

But its a free market right, if somebody wants to flood the network, miners just increase the transaction fee.

Let the spammer pay, eventually he will run out of money.


I think it should be raised to 2 MB atleast, c`mon i got a  300 mb/s internet speed, guys get yourself better fucking internet:

...the power of the network effect. Altcoins that desperately attempt to compete with Bitcoin, or the XT episode are good illustrations. It is extremely likely that the blocksize limit will push people to offchain Bitcoin solution rather than push them away from Bitcoin. This has already been observed with Dice users that got pushed to centralized Bitcoin offchain services when the min relay fee was implemented.