Yes, from signature campaign and I sell bitcoins to people in person at market + 5-10% depending on the person and the amount.

BTC will hit $1000+ again but no time soon, ONLY after security measures are put in place to make BTC a "safe" investment. Safe in terms of reasonable investment security, currently there are far too many ways to lose your money than to make it.

I’m from Australia. A lot of my acquaintances have hear about BTC, but almost no one use it because they think bitcoin is a scum or they don’t understand it.

It would help if you were to give some kind of evidence to backup your claim.

I hope that you realize that it is 1% per bet that you should expect to lose on average over the long term. So if you are making 1 BTC bets, then over time you will loose .01 per bet

It should be expected that the price of bitcoin be unstable in it's early years. The same is true for most other currencies. It you were to look at a longer term graph, you would see even more instability.

Over a much longer term the price of bitcoin will likely eventually 'settle down' to more normalized levels (be it either higher or lower where it stands now) as more adoption will likely cause the price to stabilize

If you are not aware of the facts then you probably are not qualified to be making comments about the question at hand.

---

A million dollars (or even two million dollars) is really not a lot of money to be spending to build a piece of software that is used for a half million people, many of which conduct a lot of business on

The donations were specifically for a new forum/new forum software. This was something that theymos explicitly said he was going to use the donated money for. After the $1.5 million is spent and the new forum is complete then the forum will still have a lot of money left over that is specifically earmarked for new forum software, due in part to the fact that the price of bitcoin has appreciated so much since most of the bitcoin was donated.

The US government does not quite have as negative view on bitcoin as the Chinese government does. There is also a lot more corruption throughout the Chinese government, and overall less rule of law when it comes to private property. This means that it would be more conceivable for the chinese government to seize chinese miners and use them to attack the network

You are correct in saying that faucets are a very good way to get people to become knowledgeable about bitcoin as several faucets do contain good information about bitcoin and how bitcoin works. However faucets quickly become something that causes someone to make very little BTC - well under the amount that one would expect to earn in a minimum wage job
I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but I think it is safe to say that I disagree

Since no one really knows for sure, and the fact that I do not like anyone's answer so far, I will chime in....

I would say that the reason would be that btc-e offers more privacy protections then bitstamp, therefore people are more inclined to sell on btc-e then they are to buy on btc-e as they do not need to go through the AML/KYC verifications that bitstamp (and other exchanges) require their customers to go through

For further clarificationYou should create a new one of these every time you receive bitcoin. There are a few exceptions to this rule, primarily when you are expecting to receive bitcoin from some kind of service multiple times and they offer an option to "lock" your payout address as an additional security measure. When you send bitcoin from that 'dedicated' address, it is best to always send to a previously unused address
Generally speaking most wallet services allow for some level of coin control, however it is generally best to create multiple wallets to promote additional privacy. Even though wallet services allow for coin control, people make mistakes, and you may inadvertently sign one transaction with two private keys that you intended to keep disassociated with each-other, having multiple wallets helps prevent you from making that mistake  
I may be incorrect on this, however I believe that some people (including satoshi) at one point called a bitcoin address a 'bitcoin account'. Additionally, today, some services allow the user to retain control of the private keys when creating an 'account' (for example coinbase multisignature vault - the private keys are generated either in the browser or by coinbase - I am not sure which and do not have the resources to tell you which applies - although you will need to trust coinbase enough to believe they will not retain a copy of the private keys after they give them to you). For the above reasons I would dispute this definition.

I am fairly certain that the OP is referring to a retail physical store, as in someone who is essentially accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction all the time. I don't believe that coinbase/bitpay actually accept 0/unconfirmed transactions, although they do mark it as 'paid' once the tx is broadcast to their node.

I change my guess to +1.26% to +1.50% (didn't see him)

My guess is +1.51% to +1.75%

Does anyone know if suchmoon actually plans on continuing?

1 - I doubt that anyone here cares about the status of your loan as it was very unlikely that anyone would have been willing to take on enough risk to "invest" in your debt
2 - Since there are were only enough suckers to fund ~5 BTC of your loan, you would have received nothing as the loan would not have funded, so instead in invest the remainder of the loan to get it to fund and then run away

The fact that the emails were posted as pictures isn't going to help anyone trying to translate them into english. They are timestamped late 2014 up to mid January 2015 which is around the time that FC last logged in. IMO this is really not going to give any additional information

I would say that it would be fair to say that cex's maintenance fee is roughly in line with their actual costs. I am sure they are/were making a profit off of their maintenance fees, however I would think their margins were pretty thin.

Additionally it would be a good guideline even with a small profit as miners would not want to keep their machines on just to essentially break even, they want to expect at least a small profit after costs to account for the risk they will have bad luck

I am not sure the chances of the price being under $220 for long enough to make a difference are very good. There is only ~4.4 days left until the next adjustment and the price would need to be below that level at least a good two to three days prior to the adjustment in order for it to have any meaningful impact on the difficulty change.

I would say it is more likely that more miners will be turned back on as the price has recently increased

This. There are many people on here that are saying that you should use faucets, however they do not realize the amount of time required to be put into actually receiving faucet funds. Nor do they understand the fact that the reason they are receiving funds from faucets is because they are viewing advertisements and therefore are not receiving "free" bitcoin

This is true, as you explained in your thread arguing against keeping the max block size at 1 MB.

However thinking that the number of transactions per second will (near) instantly jump to 1 million is just not realistic. What would more realistically happen is that the number of TPS would increase over time which would give enough time for the network to be forked to allow for a higher number of TPS (via a larger max block size).

If we were to see a(n average) number of TPS that effectively brushed up against the maximum for a medium period of time, then we would see a period similar to some parts of 2013 where we saw confirmation times effectively increase, and the effective minimum tx fee required to have your tx confirmed in the next block increase