I am not sure I can trust Gemini to safeguard my private information. I know there are AML/KYC regulations that require them to collect our information, but are there regulations that require them to safeguard said information? For credit cards banks have to comply with PCI regulations. For medical records hospitals have to comply with HIPAA. Most fincancial service providers require yearly audits for SAS70, SSAE16, etc. Do Bitcoin exchanges even need to comply with anything as far as protecting our information is concerned?

If you want regulation you need complete regulation that includes those intended to protect the customers of the exchange ... not just to satisfy AML/KYC. I am not sure we are there yet.

How do I feel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TqIdff_DQ

I would view your inquiries as a potential threat to the fungibility of coins traded on the exchange. Maybe the executive feels the same?

Imagine if people started pricing coins differently based on who mined them. Next, people would start asking for taint history.

I hope we will never need to rely on large commercial enterprises to sustain the Bitcoin network. Such large enterprises are beholden to centralized government.

What about the innocent act of depositing BTC to a localbitcoins account and withdrawing and/or selling the equivalent number coins over the next few days? This is the simplest case you need to properly handle (without any additional information from localbitcoins) before you can even talk about mixers, CoinJoin or what not.

You're getting the work from different pools in each image. Are you sure that is not a factor?

Once you have transmitted some bitcoins from an address the private key behind that address becomes mathematically less secure. This is because some information is revealed on the public blockchain that would make it slightly easier for a hacker to guess your private key. Using today's computing power, this does not amount to any significant risk, but who knows what can happen with future technologies such as quantum computing.

So with 100 addresses each with different private keys this theoretical risk is mitigated.

In practice, having 100 addresses is only better for privacy reasons because it makes it a little harder for people to track your transactions.

Because you won't have enough photons of light to perform your trick? You need at least one photon for each possible solution. There are plenty of photons in the universe, but you'd be hard pressed to find even a fraction of 2^256 photons on earth within your life span.

Of course I do. I trade based of greed, fear and hunches.

1) Hunch - tells me which direction the market will go.
2) Greed - makes me open a position that is too big. Also makes me hold on to a winning position about to turn bad when I should be selling it and moving on.
3) Fear - the fear that I will "loose everything" makes me close my losing position at the worst possible time.

Oh yes, I forgot anger, the most important emotion.

4) Anger - after my trade starts going south, if anger overcomes fear then I capitalize on this emotion to do Revenge Trades, where I use borrowed funds to double down on losing positions.

It was 2010 and 1.21 BTC was worth nothing. The core wallet.dat file now contains pre-generated change addresses to mitigate things like these. If it wasn't for these experiments we might not have this feature.

I have been experimenting with sending hashpower over to NiceHash, even though I mostly mine on Eligius. With the exception of having to upgrade the cgminer in firmware, it seems to work pretty well (at least better than Pirate's GPU Max did). I am still not convinced that selling hashes to XT supporters is any worse than selling them physical miners, since anybody can buy these hashes and the seller has no control over what is done with them.

The poll does not have an option for "a few hours (back in the day)". I remember clearly that my first $99 video card made around 3 BTC a day when I first started pool mining, which meant that it took approximately 8 hours for the first BTC. That pool was deepbit.net, which has gone defunct a long time ago. Over the next few weeks I bought more $99 cards and pointed them at BTC Mine, BTC Guild and Slush. All the pools were using the proportional payment method back then, and people were just learning to game the system using pool-hopping strategies. I also remember that those $99 Sapphire HD5830 cards quickly sold out on Newegg after somebody mentioned about them on this forum and people found out that they were as cost-effective as the already sold out HD5870 or HD5970 cards. I only managed to snag 8 of those cards .

Who knows? Maybe he is thinking about starting ReversibleCoin and doing some background research about potential user acceptance. At least, that was the way I viewed the question - not so much about forking Bitcoin per se.

Believe it or not some people hate irreversibility, likely people who mostly transact in the context of consumers/buyers.

It a national currency were to go crypto, I would expect that only parts of it would be decentralized. Issuance of new currency would certainly be kept under the control of the country, or maybe it's central bank. However, there is no reason why transaction confirmation could not be decentralized. Transaction confirmation would be purely fee based since there would be no reward for mining new currency.

The advantage of doing so is that the national currency would be accessible to more people and hopefully there would be less of a need to rely on the USD as a world reserve currency for global transactions. This is important for countries who have not so friendly trade relations with the US.

You should do some independent research on the Red Cross and decide if they are a wasteful organization or not. Do not use them as a benchmark to compare against other organizations.

Me, I prefer to donate to grassroots organizations that I am familiar with.

The lower limit (in the same block of code as the upper limit) is more of a concern, because if most of the hash rate drops suddenly you could have slow confirmation times for multiple 2016-block periods.


Also I believe max difficulty increase is +300% (4x). Difficulty can drop down to 25% but not lower.

That is a 100 CFM fan. Seems a little too small for a 1.2 kW miner.

If I am not mistaken, there might be a way to cleanse blacklisted coins with the collusion of a relatively large miner provided that you can transmit the transaction to nobody else but the miner. Basically you broadcast a transaction with tainted inputs with a larger than normal fee to the miner. The miner does not rebroadcast the transaction, but attempts to include it into a block. After the miner successfully includes the transaction into a block, he keeps a small portion of the fee for himself and surreptitiously sends the rest back to you. Since the fee portion is no longer tainted, what he sends back to you are clean coins. The remaining, still-tainted, coins go to addresses that you control. You then rinse and repeat the processes until the tainted coins have been spent as miner fees.

Can this work?

Frictionless international transactions of over $10,000.

So if I am in no hurry to mix my coins I can run Yield Generator and be a Maker and get some extra BTC in the end? Sounds like a good deal.