Don't both blockchains technically have a corrupted block?

I am kind of flattered to get a response from fluffypony...

Everybody knows that Dingleberry (BBR) is crap.

Can people please stop talking about Dingleberry (BBR) on the Monero thread.

BTC withdrawal greater than 1BTC took 6 hours to process.

It seems that withdrawals under 1BTC are automated and get processed in around 10 minutes.  Anything larger takes... some period of time greater than 4 hours, which I am still haven't found out how long it is.

I deposited some BTC a few days back in bx.in.th to trade stellar.  I am now trying to withdrawal BTC and the withdrawal says that is "Awaiting Approval" for the last several hours.  Has anyone else had issues with withdrawing BTC?

Does anyone know what is going on with coinmarketcap?  It shows that Monero only has around 193000 total coins.  I thought this was supposed to be around 2.7M.

Personally, I mine dark because my GPUs run at much lower temperatures and then sell the darkcoin to buy Vertocoin.

The reason Vertcoin is potentially valuable is because it is ASIC resistant, which means it will continue to operate via a decentralized network in the future.  As mining hardware becomes more specialized, barriers to entry and efficiency of scale cause mining operations, and therefore the network to become more centralized.  The original promise of Litecoin, and the reason that it originally held such prominence, was that it would remain decentralized.  With the introduction of scrypt ASICs it essentially no longer serves this purpose while Vertcoin does.  The initial bump that Vertcoin is experiencing started the same day that KNCminer announced pre-orders for their scrypt asic.  Also, Litecoin started dropping in value the same day...

looks interesting.

I have been reading alot about the anonymity of the blockchain and the different methods for attempting to make transactions anonymous.
The technologies that help to keep a users anonymity seem to be two fold. 

The first is to prevent a wallet from being associated with a person.  The methods for preventing wallet association are focused on using an address a limited number of times, and preventing an address from being associated with an IP.  Anoncoin helps to do this by making the use of the TOR network native to the wallet, but the TOR network could be used with any cryptocurrency it is just the functionality is not native.  Also,  I find it very interesting that everyone in the internet world seems to trust that the government doesn't monitor TOR even though it was originally funded by the Office of Navel Research and the TOR foundation continues to receive approximately 80% of its funding from the US government.  As far as I understand TOR, if enough of the nodes are controlled by one entity the origin and the source of encrypted the traffic can still be ascertained.  But I digress...

The second method is to make it difficult to trace the movement of coins from one wallet to another, so that it is hard to draw connections between people to eliminate the possibility of a persons identity being determined through the identity of a person with whom they have transacted.  This is the whole concept of a mixing service.  You send you coins to a pool of addresses and they sit there for a period of time and get mixed about with other people who sent there coins to the mixing service.  The coins are then sent to a receiving address(es) over some period of time to prevent the sending and receiving addresses from being associated.  This is what darksend is using.  The primary advantage of darksend is that you do not have to trust any of you coins to a mixing service so there is no counterparty risk.  Also, if darksend is used for every transaction rather than just one or two were you want to "anonymize" your coins, it will be many order of magnitudes harder to use network analysis to identify people in the network.

The last option that people have talked about is using the method purposed by Zerocoin.  This uses some pretty advanced mathematics which I haven't honestly dug into but involves using zero-confirmation proofs...  Anyway, the biggest problem with Zerocoin beside the fact that the method is very data intensive, so it will make for in impractically large blockchain, is it doesn't currently exist.

Therefore, I was wondering if there are any technologies that are better than Darkcoins Darksend at this point in time for anonymizing transactions?

Does this also apply to non-BTC balances?

Interested In!

In descending order of awesome, and expected fair value in BTC:
Vertcoin (long term) 0.08BTC
Darkcoin (short term, wait and see, sell at 0.01BTC) - highly dependent upon other zerocoin type efforts
Gridcoin (short term) - 1e-4BTC
Riecoin (short to mid term) - 0.06BTC

I bought Vertcoin for 0.4mBTC.  I bought Dark for 0.5mBTC.  I am still loving both investments, and I think there is room to grow.

I wonder if the current system that we have for innovating in the cryptocurrency space is the most efficient if we are going to address the concerns the OP has about Bitcoin.  Instead of starting a new altcoin everytime their is an idea for a new feature it would be interesting to have an alt-coin evolve new features over time.  An alt-coin would be more able to do this than Bitcoin because the market cap would be lower and so would the overall risk of screwing it up.  It could be called EvoCoin.

I really hope that the developers of zero coin are intentionally delaying the release of this coin to prevent a harsh crack down from regulators globally.  Bitcoin first needs to hit truly critical mass before this type of heat is brought against the technology.

In addition to volume, I think it is also very important to look at liquidity.  This is going to be based on the number of exchanges that trade VTC, the number of currencies that can be traded for VTC, and the total book orders.  Taking this into account I think VTC should easily be in the top 10 in terms of total market cap in very short order.

Though I do imagine the Bitcoin community has a higher IQ than average I am finding the number of people claiming an IQ higher than 150 a little hard to believe...