Yes I understand that but they don't wait to see if you leave with the Rolex.  You must declare what the law requires you to declare and (please READ THE FORM BEFORE RESPONDING) what has to be declared DEPENDS ON IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OR NOT.

If you are resident you declare all property acquired abroad when entering the US.
If you are a non-resident you only declare property acquired abroad if you intend to leave in the country.
Same exact property, the requirement to declare or not to declare depends on if the person is a resident or non-resident. 
So once again non-resident vs resident ABSOLUTELY matters.

The customs guy isn't going to listen to a long life story and make a personal exception.  If the law (the legal definition of non-resident vs resident) says he is a resident, then he follows the rules for residents.  If the law says he is a non-resident then he follows the rules for non-residents.
For the record I assume he would be classified as a non-resident and thus would NOT declare the property unless he intends to leave it in the US.  That was already asked and answered up thread.  I just advised Goat while I think he is a non-resident he might want to confirm that.

A system like that would ensure that all miners are forced to join pools or suffer reduced earnings.  Worse bigger pools would be more successful then small ones, and played out that game will end up with one pool with a super majority of the hashing power.

The reason is that under "1 winning nonce" system (all coins to date) there is no "progress" towards a block.  Thus when a block is solved by another miner you don't lose anything.  Each nonce attempted is an independent lottery ticket and it either instantly wins or it is instantly worthless.  This means large miners don't earn disproportionately more than smaller miners.  Larger miners have less variance, but in the "long run" all miners earn their "fair share" of the network hashrate.  Someone with 10% of hashpower will solve 10% of the blocks and someone with 1/100th of 1% of the hash power will solve 1/100th of 1% of the blocks. One word description: independent trials.

Under a "x winning nonces solve a block" there IS progress towards a block and the larger x is the more progress it takes and thus can be lost.  If you solve 1499 nonces and another miner solves 1500 you will get nothing and he gets everything.  Lets look at a scenario where the entire network consists of two miners/pools.  Pool A has 60% of the total hashpower and pool B has the other 40%.  At first glance you would assume that just like above Pool A would get 60% of the blocks and Pool B would get 40%, however that isn't true.  Pool B will has a 40% chance to solve a SINGLE nonce before Pool A but since it takes 1,500 to solve a block Pool B would need to win this 60/40 flip, 1500 times to get to the finish line first.  While the smaller pool will sometimes get lucky and beat the odds in the long run it will earn less than its share of the hashpower.  I believe it would be ~18% of the blocks with 40% of hashpower (did a quick & disty monte carlo simulations but obviously you could a much longer more complex one).   Now the reality is no miner in Pool B is going to accept less than half the theoretical return, especially when miners in pool A are making 46% more than theoretical fair value.  I mean imagine you have 1 MH/s, you could earn 1 xCoin per day in Pool A, or 3.2 xCoins per day in Pool B.  How long would it take for you to decide to mine in Pool B?   For every miner that leaves Pool B, Pool A's "efficiency" will improve and Pool B's effecinecy will get worse.  Eventually Pool B will collapse and there will be only one pool left.   

At this point no other pool even has a chance of forming.  Say a group of advocates get together 10% of the hashing power to decentralize the network.  They would lose over 90% of the expected return trying to fight Pool A, and Pool A miners would collect a 9% bonus for doing nothing but mining normally.   Now if two pools result in a reduction to one pool, you can work backwards, three pools A, B, C with uneven split, C is the smallest pool under performs and loses miners to the larger two and eventually only A & B remain.  Working all the way back to the genesis block starts with a large number of pools and solo miners but eventually all the hashing power will end up in one pool.  One word description: dependent trials.

Independent trials = no progress towards a block.  More hashing power working on the same block only results in less volatility, the expected reward is not changed.*
Dependent trials = progress towards a block.  More hashing power working on the same block means higher returns per unit of hashing power (at the expense of lower returns per unit of hashing power by smaller miners/pools).

If you doubt the conclusion look at how much concentration of hashing power there is in the top 5 pools for Bitcoin, and this is under a "game" where large pools actually DON'T earn more than smaller pools (per unit of hashing power).  The only advantage large pools have is lower volatility and more consistent payments, even limited to this indirect benefit it has resulted in significant concentration of hashing power.  I think you can see a "game" where the rules are changed so that larger miners/pools actually earn more than smaller pools means will result in only one pool.  If BTC Guild miners earned 20% more than the average miners, and the miners in the smallest pools earned 20% less than the average how big do you think BTC Guild would be today?  How long do you think that would take?


* Some miners just like roulette players convince themselves there is progress and a pool which is unlucky will become lucky as if the failed nonces will influence the randomness of future nonces and solve blocks "faster", just like if you lose a large numer of times in a row at the craps table you are now "due" a winner. That is merely the gambler's fallacy, each event is independent.

Well resident vs non-resident DOES matter because for example a US resident going on a trip abroad comes home with a $50,000 rolex it does need to be declared because the duty for residents is what is entering the US.  I am almost certain given his circumstances he is considered a non-resident but like I said it would be good to find a reference that defines that.

That is the important distinction.  I would assume you are considered a non-resident citizen of the United States but you probably should find some cite that defines that.  

There is no VAT but there is an import duty.  It depends on the item and there is an exemption amount per household.  You can't get it back when you leave because you only declare goods which you will leave in the US.

Three examples:
You are bringing the $50,000 to the US to wear/use while in the US. You don't intend to give it away as a gift or sell it while in the US.
You intend to leave the US with the Rolex at the end of your trip.  
You do NOT DECLARE the Rolex.  No duty is due.

You are bringing the $50,000 Rolex to give as a gift to a friend/family/mafia boss while in the US.  
You intend to leave the US without the Rolex at the end of your trip.    
You MUST DECLARE the Rolex.  The duty is based on face value minus the exemption.

You are bringing the $50,000 Rolex to the US because you have found a buyer who will give you a better price than a buyer in your country.
You intend to leave the US without the Rolex at the end of your trip.    
You MUST DECLARE the Rolex.  The duty is based on face value minus the exemption.

Are you considered a US resident?  If not then you don't declare EVERYTHING you are bringing into the country you only declare what you are "leaving" in the United States.

See line 15 on the form and the "important info" on the back.

Also yes if you are traveling together the declaration must be joint.  The cash limit is per household/declaration so $10K total for all members of your household on a single flight.  If you ARE taking the same flight don't try to have you and your spouse go through customs seperately with $10K ea, unless you are looking for a free prostate exam. They match flight manifest against customs declarations and screen for likely split households (i.e. man & woman on same flight with same surname, going through customs individually both with large amounts of cash).  Yes it is stupid and pointless but .  If you travel separately on different flights arriving at different times then you can each file a declaration and bring in $10K ea.  So stupidly easy to bypass one would think they would just make the limit $10K per person in the household by no, that is sheer awesomeness of our government hard at "work".

 https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/195/~/currency-%2F-monetary-instruments---amount-that-can-be-brought-into-or-leave-the


Summary:
1) If you are a visitor only declare the value of good you will be leaving in the US.  You will pay a duty only on the value of goods (not cash) declared.
2) There is no duty on cash but you need to declare it (any amount).
3) The limit on cash is $10K per declaration.  $1, $900, $9,999, $10,000 are all fine, no problem, and no duty.  $10,000.01 or more you will have a bad day.
3) The declaration should be done per household if traveling together.
4) #3 only really matters when it relates to cash limit as you can bring as much property as you want individually or jointly so there is no change there, they duty is only due on what you leave behind.

LOLZ.  Don't help them become a better scammer, at least make them pay you for a lecture on "Basic Scamology 101".

So just to clarify it is 0.1 BTC + 0.1 BTC = 0.2 BTC total per unit plus shipping cost.
Right?  Sounds good to me just want to make sure I understand.

Don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.  I would say there is a good chance they really do believe their own hype.  It is similar to how most business fail and most of those failures aren't scams.  They just fail due to bad business plans, unrealistic goals, poor management, outside factors, etc.

The problem with a "human coin" is human labor can be purchased very cheap.  Large miners will simply be the people who have the resources and connections to run "mining sweatshops" in India, Bangledash, Vietnam, etc.  That will drive up difficulty and you have new users in the first world saying "WTF?  It takes an hours worth of work to produce 1 HumanCoin which is only worth $0.12".   Meanwhile some human-net operator is making $12,000 an hour using the low cost labor of others.

What is shipping cost for both normal and fast?

Nope.   The Bitcoin protocol uses absolutely no encryption anywhere for any purpose although some clients may encrypt wallets that isn't required or part of the protocol. 

Hint: encryption doesn't mean what you probably think it means.

Bitcoin doesn't use encryption. 

is a false statement.

At least they include the "as of july 2011".

Scam boosters.  By using GPU in parallel they can increase the efficiency of the transfer of wealth from your pocket to theirs by a staggering 27,123%.

I would recommend reading more to reach your own conclusions but here are some bits to get your started.

All the Bitcoins won't be mined until ~2140 (the exact date may be sooner due to rising hashing power but not more than 30-40 years sooner).  Miners are compensated with block subsidies and fees.  Since the block subsidy keeps halving every ~4 years fees will be more important long before the last bitcoin is mined.

Quantum Computer capable of implementing Shor's algorithm against 256 bit keys (ECC protecting bitcoin addresses) is far beyond capabilities of current systems (we are talking about tens of thousands of qubits). It also requires the public key to be know.  A Bitcoin address is a hash of the public key, and the actual public key remains unknown until an address is used to send funds.  This is one reason why addresses shouldn't be reused.  While not bulletproof it would provide resistance to attack by QC during a transition to a stronger address type.  Bitcoin could be extended to support post-quantum cryptography.  As for QC being used to mine Bitcoins, generally speaking Shor's algorithm can't be used against hashing functions and symmetric encryption algorithms.  Lastly there is no known QC algorithm to solve the somewhat unique problem of Bitcoin mining.  Grover's algorithm can be used to reverse a single hash however it only produces a modest speed improvement and in mining Bitcoin one isn't looking for a single valid hash but rather a set which consists of quadrillions of valid hashes.  It is not a given that QC will EVER provide a superior/faster/cheaper method of solving blocks.

Old wallets are not a problem.  You wouldn't even need to keep the wallet in any particular form.  The private keys for the address(es) holding the funds is all that is needed.  Bitcoins never expire, and private keys don't go stale.  In may help to think of the Bitcoins not in your wallet but being on every copy of the blockchain spread across tens of thousands of nodes.  Your wallet doesn't contain Bitcoins it contains the keys which allow you (or your heirs) to spend those Bitcoins.  As long as the key remains uncompromised coins can be spent as long as the network exists.  I would recommend generating a set of kepairs offline (there are utilities to accomplish this and then storing the private keys and corresponding addresses on more than medium in more than one location (i.e. a MDIC in a home safe, and paper printout in a safety deposit box).

As for leaving your assets to heirs in the Bitcoin form, although I am an advocate I feel it is unethical to not point out that Bitcoin is an experiment.  This has simply has never been done before and "the test of time" is a long time.  Personally I believe on a long enough timeline (decades) Bitcoins will either be worth many magnitudes than they are today or worth nothing (or almost nothing) at all.  As long as you understand both outcomes are possible and make your plans accordingly I don't see a problem with it.

One thing I don't understand is why didn't Satohi use the double SHA-256 + RIPEMD-160 combo that is used in other areas for the POW.  It would provide redundancy in the (highly unlikely) scenario that SHA-2 is broken rapidly.

Do you have a filed trademark for Nuggets?  I doubt it.  So you have no legal authority to prevent anyone else from using the name.

Please please while I usually hate patent/trademark trolls someone else trademark nuggets and prohibit Vlad from infringing upon the trademarked property.

For crying outloud I can't find an engineer to make a moon teleporter.  I mean step one, I stand on the teleporter. Step 2, I am on the moon.  It is so simple, why hasn't anyone done it yet, are all engineers incompetent.

You still fail to understand that the miner's reward IS A TRANSACTION and thus is part of the block being found.  A block solution is only valid for s specific block, which contains a specific set of transactions, one of which is the miner's reward transaction (coinbase) which has a SPECIFIC amount. You don't have an idea on how to design anything, you just want it magically done and for <$40.  You say you aren't "changing bitcoin" but to have a transaction with a variable amount in a block would be a significant change from Bitcoin.  Worse you have no idea how it should be done, you don't even have the basic knowledge to discuss potential strategies in a competent manner.  You just want to pay some programmer a token amount of money and magically a solution appears.

Your a fucking idiot.