The median time it takes for the miners to find new blocks is far from this stable. It can sometimes take the miners over an hour to find one additional block, or three or four blocks can potentially be found within a matter of a minute or two. You really need to look at much longer periods of time in order to get an accurate measure of average block confirmation times

This is a very good point. Too add onto this, companies like bitpay will help get more consumers to start using bitcoin as it gives them a reason to do so. This will overall benefit bitcoin over the long run

No company is going to follow your political beliefs 100% of the time across all issues. 

It requires an additional amount of work and an additional risk that a block will orphan for each additional TX that is included in a block. If the TX fee is too low then it will not be worth it to the miners to receive this additional small amount of money

These are two very different accusations. One involves the trade of something that has very little value (and can be found for free on the internet) while the other involves the theft of actual property.

Some people want to try to get different unit of measurements to be used when describing amounts of bitcoin. I really do not see any problem with simply describing amounts in terms of bitcoin as .01 bitcoin is ~$3.5 and I don't see any real need to get very much more specific then this (you could always go one or two more decimal places if you needed to).

I think he probably got the idea from the lazo pizza trade and wants to replicate it

They received well over $100,000 in bitcoin sales within the first 24 hours of starting to accept bitcoin. It was said that the level of sales were somewhat inflation at first because many people wanted to 'take the plunge' right away and use their bitcoin on overstock right away.

Another solution would be to not rely a transaction via tor with a full node, but rather use either blockchain.info/pushtx or a light client like multibit.

There is no real reason to need to use a full node to push a tx. You could sufficiently protect yourself by using a full node to monitor for you receiving a TX or to use a trusted block explorer that you can access via a tor hidden service

This attorney is incorrect. The only reason why you would need to become a money transmitter if you are accepting bitcoin is if you are trading fiat for bitcoin (or bitcoin for fiat). If you are accepting bitcoin for cute puppies then accepting bitcoin is little different from you accepting checks as payment

You have claimed to have given him back his account, so claiming that he did not send you enough is not a valid reason for him to be making a claim against you like this. You can either claim that he did not send enough (so you did not need to give him the account back) or that you did give the account back and that he is lying, but you cannot claim both. If you are going to claim that you did not need to give him his account back then you will lose credibility.

He has already provided a screenshot of PMs from both you and someone else regarding the loan that he was requesting. This is certainly not proof beyond a doubt, but it is something that gives a good indication that he, at one point had access to the account after he requested the loan.

This is also not the first time you have been accused of scamming from someone as a few months ago it was claimed that you were overpaid for an account, but when you were called out you refunded the scamee. (I can't find the specific thread but it was in the beginners and help section)

What is the username of your other account? If you click on the trust (you can only do this when you are logged in) then you can see if the password was changed in the last 3 days or reset in the last 30 days.

The OP actually more likely sold the hashlets to a third party at roughly the selling price that GAW sells the hashlets for to the public. Everyone received what was roughly the market price

PM's don't prove anything, you could easily have given him a fake password via PM. I think you should get pierre11 to sign a message from the above address. If you are going to quickly dismiss the idea of him signing a message from such address then I think you did not give the account back.

If he replies saying that he cannot sign a message from that address for some reason then we can go from there (most likely we can have someone like VOD log into his coinbase account - or what ever account is receiving the btc at that address - to verify that the account actually receives btc at such address)

I don't think this is proof.

I think that you should have pierre11 sign a message from 13k3pGFoJG5TWSVnXoUE7mD4QUnYDn5ZBU (which is the address that he requested the loan to be sent to) confirming that he received his account back. If you can get him to do this then you returned the account back to him, if he cannot do this, or if he does not log back into his account, then you most likely stole the account from him

Mark of Gox is in a very different situation from the OP. The potential evidence that involves Gox is very complex, probably too so for law enforcement to understand. However the "hacking" of bank accounts (making unauthorized withdrawals?) as the OP claims to be framed of is a much simpler crime.

While I do not consider any of this activity to be trustworthy, I do not think any of this is a valid reason to not pay moreia. If he won the money then he should be paid, end of story.

Unless it can be documented that the maleware that was sent by moreia had caused him to win when he should not have won then he should be paid.

Although admitting that the maleware had caused him to win would certainly be a black eye to your site, it is the only real reason why he should not be entitled to his winnings (I would not put it out of the question that this is what caused him to win)

this is the post when candy says that he gave the loan and the repayment address.

this is the post when candy provides the TXID of the loan being repaid. (both posts are unedited as of now)

This is not entirely surprising. Candystripes seems to be very immature and I am surprised that he has not stolen more accounts via his lending thread.

I have seen him spam the forum with useless posts with a couple of his accounts (the candystripes account, ejaculation, and your account). I am somewhat surprised that he has not been banned yet

I am not surprised that BFL is engaging in this kind of behavior against the FTC. They have always acted horribly unprofessional towards their customers, and I see no reason why this would stop for the people who are forcing BFL to stop scamming

I think it would be very difficult to enforce such a restriction. Smartphones are designed to be able to be replicated on a computer so devs of apps can write and test apps for various smartphones. If such an algo was created then someone could simply run several instances of a smartphone VM on their computer in order to mine the coin that uses the algo

There are some of both. Some states have no sales tax and some have no income tax. Most have both. I don't think there are any states that have neither. Pretty much all states have a property tax.

You do agree to pay the taxes because you are not forced to live in a locality that has taxes, as you could move somewhere that has lower taxes (or no taxes - although I doubt there are very many places like this because the government will provide services to it's citizens).