What evidence can we look at to support the idea that there are bad actors deliberately attacking Bitcoin to drive up the transaction fees?

Does any other cryptocurrency have this same kind of problem?

If Bitcoin flops then will the bad actors switch their attention to the next top currency?

Perhaps Satoshi is a rogue AI.

32 bits isn't even close to enough today.  The extra nonce is absolutely required.

A buddy of mine has been using Broad for years and loves them too.

Ok, so, if I see some coins move then come here to reclaim them?

How would I be able to tell if one of my addresses was collided?

I wonder if there could be security issues which aren't addressed by any number of additional rounds.

For option 2, how would the number of rounds be increased?  How can an algorithm detect the security is at risk?

Um, so, SegWit is active but when will we see evidence of it helping?  Have any SegWit transactions gone through yet?  Will the transaction count per block start going up?

What is Bitcoin?  What does it mean to be secure?  And then how much more is really secure?

My bitcoins are spread out (by which I mean my private keys are not all kept in one place) helping make them more secure, i.e. no one breach would get all of my bitcoins.  Btw, this is inconvenient for my beneficiaries.

Bitcoin (as opposed to my bitcoins) might be breached and then we could all lose all of our bitcoins at once.  What could be the nature of this breach?  One of those nasty 51% attacks?  A flaw in SHA256, etc.

What about economical problems?  For example, if Satoshi returns.

I would like to get a copy of your paper about R5 (when it is ready), if that's ok.

How much "corporate" investment are you looking for?  Or are you saying you want a "corporation" to embrace your approach and invest in making it come to life?

A reversible-friendly algorithm, e.g. not SHA-256, might always be simple to implement irreversibly and achieve both better speed and reasonable energy consumption.

Every so often I send a zero-fee transaction into the system to see how long it takes to confirm; it was for a legit purpose to move some idle Bitcoin from one wallet I didn't want to use anymore into another.  Last time I tried it in April it took *only* 11 days.

Clearly the fees, e.g. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ & https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees, don't come down as fast as they went up.  If more users would try lower fees and see they do get their transactions confirmed in reasonable amounts of time then the meme would counteract the one driving the fees higher.  What's needed is a chart comparing transactions waiting to be confirmed vs. fees waiting over time.

It's a little like those gas price websites.  If more people checked them before blindly paying a higher price at the conveniently located station then that would create consumer pressure to drive prices down.

Our wallet software is offering default fee calculations that are too high.  Moreover, perhaps unintentionally, they drive the fee calculation up in a reverse auction effect.  Even worse, our wallet software resists making it convenient to reduce the fee if we want to try for a lower one.

Hmm, it appears there's been a misunderstanding.  Reverse engineering and reversible computing are very different things.  One cannot take a non-reversible device and add something around it to make it reversible.  One must reengineer a circuit from the gates on the chips up to make it reversible.

Any digital circuit can be made reversible using components like the Fredkin and Toffoli gates.  This includes SHA-256.  As much fun as it would be, there is no fundamental need to develop a new algorithm for the Bitcoin PoW.  It would truly be interesting to engineer a reversible SHA-256 computing device and see how it compares in speed vs. energy consumption against the current generation of non-reversible ASICs.  In practice only the hottest portions of the circuit benefit from being made reversible.  A hybrid circuit of both reversible and non-reversible sections is likely to be the one that gives the best trade-off of speed and efficiency.

Agreed; my "HODL in all situations" is emotional.  The original SSS plan is non-emotional.  I have a small enough basis that I don't care if it all goes to zero in a flash; well, I will be disappointed but ok.  Anyone taking more than an insignificant portion of their wealth into such risky investments should do it with a plan like SSS.

By the time I would want to sell any to use it will be time to use it directly and not convert through fiat.

How can everyone be right when everyone is wrong?

Compromise or walk away from each other.

This whole thing comes down to who gets the legacy/brand.

Fight until everyone walks away from you.

Waste of time/effort; "Bad guys" will (if they haven't already) find a home on altcoins without a master key (if that's even possible).

On the other hand, I don't doubt for a second that eventually the authorities will begin knocking on doors.  Our hope is they run out of money (or political support) to pay for enforcement troops before they do.  Make friends with a cop and get him started on Bitcoin in order to educate them.

Thank you Satoshi; we haven't heard from you in awhile so we thought we would take control of some bitcoins that might be yours; hope you don't mind; we will give them back if you return; honest.

Nope; bad idea.