Greg Maxwell aka nullc on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3vurqp/greg_maxwell_capacity_increases_for_the_bitcoin/cxr73g3
They're given priority by having a much lower effective size; meaning they'll be ranked higher for a given amount of fee paid, and thus mined quicker.

They could easily add extra priority points for transactions that use sw.

It has been approved!

https://twitter.com/ken_lunde/status/661351862155669506

Now all the font designers can start submitting the symbol to be added to their favorite font!

Would it work to create a sidechain with a mix of crypto algorithms that bitcoin uses and offer faster/larger blocks blocks and pegged 1:1 with bitcoin. Then as people use the sidechain, hardware is created that verifies the bitcoin chain and mines on the sidechain?

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

I know the extension was made in a way that configuration can occur without mytrezor.com (In fact you can do it all while your computer is offline if you were so inclined) but the extension is also used for mytrezor.com wallet features for those who want it. I don't remember the password part but that is easily spoofed with just entering a simple fake password. (Just don't use the addresses that it generates of course). For computer usage I use Electrum and Mycelium on phone. Both can share the same trezor.

You configure it with the extension and when you use Mycelium just plug it in and select the accounts tab and add another account and select the hardware wallet option. (I don't think it shows the xpub but it does show qr codes for your addresses just like another other HD account)

After adding a Trezor account I noticed that the the balance tab show a "Secure My Funds" button still. If I click it it starts showing words but for "Account 1". It might confuse people that they are backing up their Trezor account somehow and perhaps Trezor accounts should have that button removed?

From the extension readme:

"it has a built-in device management functionality, for wiping/recovery/initialization/.... It doesn't connect to any outside sources, all the data (including TREZOR firmware) is bundled with the app, so it works completely offline (if you somehow manage to install Chrome without an internet connection)."

I wish it had some type of tab for listing receiving addresses based off of the password entered.

The latest Chrome extension when accessed through "Apps" button allows configuring the Trezor WITHOUT mytrezor.com! 

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/COINXBT:SS

According to reddit it just showed up on bloomberg terminals.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pnnp/finally_two_weeks_after_initial_sthlm_nasdaq/

The Trezor chrome extension for Linux works perfect! Thanks.

Has anyone seen https://bitpay.com/chaindb.pdf "ChainDB: A Peer-to-Peer Database System" and how it compares to the FACTOM way of doing it?

/ 9.66 = 316

(the turnover is in SEK)

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/barry-silbert-plans-to-have-bitcoin-fund-traded-on-nasdaq-or-nyse/32161
“Our plan is to have [the Bitcoin Investment Trust] listed on either NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange as fast as possible. We have selected a law firm to go through the registration process with us, and we intend to file with the SEC . . . as soon as possible. We will then be in the same boat as the Winklevoss brothers.”

Assuming they file right now would there be a chance they can beat COIN out the gates or would their filing have to go through the same long process?

Watching the creation of GBTC has been fascinating. 6 weeks?? since announcement with all the layers of regulations, lawyers, politicians, and third-parties that are needed to transfer assets securely. That's bitcoin's competition.  LOL.

With a Trezor wallet on mytrezor.com all set up I load Electrum. I'm given a choice of "Create New wallet" or "Restore wallet" while selecting "Hardware wallet", it might not be obvious to everyone what one to pick if I want to use my already set up Trezor. If I pick restore it asks for the seed words to be entered. I think I've seen on other places people picking restore and confused why it was asking for the seed words. It might make it easy for people to make mistakes with their backup seed.

When someone picks hardware wallet shouldn't it make "Restore or import wallet" unselected? People will pick it and input their Trezor seed into the wizard. I think selecting "New" and "Standard wallet" with provisions to accept a Trezor seed are probably safer. Or more warning they are losing hardware security in the wizard on the screen where the user types in the Trezor seed.

I think GBTC will be interesting to watch! We can see specific players and the bids/asks they create and not all these anonymous walls we are used to. Hopefully someone makes a bot that shows the walls with the traders listed! 

Coinpayments First to Implement Secure Trezor Login
https://www.coinpayments.net/login