I think the OP wanted to know how to find out more technical information, not get brainwashed by crackpot conjecture.

What I've learned from this thread is that the OP is so in love with defending Gox, that if you say anything remotely critical, he will insult you personally, delusionally put words in your mouth on the basis of nothing, and gets upset to the point of profanity.

What does sCrypt have to do with any of this?

This page will introduce you to the basics of what you're asking:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Generation_Calculator

Difficulty basically sets the probability that any given hash will solve the block.

This is not a religion.

The future and value proposition of Bitcoin does not depend on people calling each other "brother" and singing around a goddamn campfire.

The OP doesn't really have an appreciation for how straightforward hashing a random number twice is.

Testnet.

American regulators need to shut their stupid uneducated sensationalist pandering mouths about drugs, murder for hire, human trafficking, terrorism, etc. and actually talk about consumer protection. Do your stupid job instead of grandstand about bullshit you know nothing about on camera.

You wouldn't want to actually do something like this live on the blockchain, instead you should develop your own internal testing procedure based on the spec. The reason being that executing a spend puts your public key out there on the blockchain, which is less security for your keypair versus just having the payment address publicly known (which adds RIPEMD-160 to the mix).

If you perform a spend with the intention of keeping a balance in that address, you've basically handed the RIPEMD-160 portion of the attack to anybody who wants to compromise your keypair. Granted it's still a daunting task, but the best security practice is to never reuse an address that has performed a spend.

What you're describing isn't what "going fractional" actually means, what you're describing is just petty theft. Fractional means that you are leveraging deposits to make a return.

Nobody can actually make money doing this unless they've already decided that what they're doing is going to be outright fly-by-night theft. And the risk/reward for doing something like this is irrational in comparison to the reward for actually running the exchange business.

Saying that this could possibly be going on is tantamount to saying that btc-e does not intend to actually operate, and that kind of claim needs a lot more evidence than just cynical bush-league allegations on the basis of 100% conjecture.

Wanting to do that is completely idiotic, because going fractional on Bitcoin does not amount to the same thing as it would with fiat deposits.

The advantage to going fractional on fiat deposits is to maximize profits through leverage, predicated on the assumption that the risk/return on lending out fiat deposits works in the depository's favor on average.

With Bitcoin, that's the most insane and dangerous proposition ever, because it isn't exactly rocket science to see from past performance that becoming illiquid in Bitcoin can result in a situation where after a large rally, the operator would never ever be able to buy back adequate reserves, because the returns in Bitcoin itself were higher than anything they could've ever done through leverage. This could only ever happen in a situation where you had a robust Bitcoin credit economy where returns themselves were denominated in Bitcoin directly.

Basically there is no way to do this without actually being a straight Ponzi. Trying to operate a plan like this amounts to massively shorting Bitcoin at all times (without customer consent) risking shorting into an enormous rally that ends you.

The notion of forking for reasons that relate to establishing certain balances is the most dangerous idea imaginable and will completely kill Bitcoin dead. Arbitrarily adjudicating the status of certain parties' coins turns the Bitcoin userbase itself into a centralized counterparty and leads down the slippery slope of deciding winners and losers in fork bailouts.

Sure, except that the original whitepaper reads as though its written by a genius, and this guy is full retard in every imaginable way.

Stop it, you created this yourself without his consent on that website.

This was disingenuously started today, the first transaction occurred 02/26

https://blockchain.info/address/1HJQjxpkSTZM2U6SGyqSuGkUYGwXd3GSw7

Normally if they have it structured correctly, proportional should pay more over longer timescales, because pay-per-share ordinarily requires a higher pool fee to compensate for potential bad pool luck.

Another aspect to the story is that if this is a straight proportional, that might be undesirable if you intend to mainly just mine there, because proportional arguably can incentivize pool hopping (i.e. you switch to a pool the moment it solves a block, so that if another block gets solved quicker than you would expect from chance alone, the shares you've contributed to that block are relatively more valuable). If their proportional is a PPLNS then that notion isn't a concern.

Whenever regulators shoot their stupid mouths off about drugs, money laundering, assassinations, human trafficking, etc., I feel like they're flushing a tremendous opportunity down the toilet to build real credibility and support from the public by instead talking about consumer protection and prosecuting fraud.

Gox is inviting all the wild speculation and innuendo you can possibly imagine by taking forever to resolve a fairly straightforward technical issue, lying about the nature of that technical issue to begin with, and offering zero helpful communications whatsoever.

The market is pricing Gox's credibility right this moment vis-a-vis the spot price, and it doesn't look pretty. There is no way in hell Gox can sustain such a low price unless the overwhelming majority opinion of market participants is that those cheap coins will never materialize.

EMA indicators always lag price movement, because the price movement has to happen in order to register in the indicator's arithmetic. That's totally normal, TA is not precognition, it's reacting to what the graph actually does. These indicators are astonishingly accurate against Bitcoin price movements in a way that you don't normally see with other asset classes.