ForestLawn says his grave is at:
Memorial Park:    Covina Hills
Section:    Vale of Faith
Map #:    19
Lot:    10048
Space:    4
Property:    Ground

I signed his memorial book at tributes.com.
I almost made an obituary for "Dave Scortese", (almost my name), but I read their terms of service, which include an agreement not to do anything that "provides false or deceptive information" so I didn't post it.  However, tributes.com also says "Tributes may or may not pre-screen User Content" (where "Tributes" is referring to the company itself), so if I didn't have the strict integrity that I do, it seems that it would be easy to create a page like the obituary waterholeIO just posted.

Well, thanks for trying to verify his death in any case.  I won a judgement against him on 6/1/2016 and sent a letter to his work (Highland Park Skilled Nursing) on 7/28/2016, but I haven't heard back from them.  I haven't heard anything back.

Marc, I won't sell the judgement because I'd rather get $1 per month from you and help you become successful enough to get out of this mess honorably instead of by faking your own death, if that's what you're doing.  If you're really gone, then maybe you can read this from the beyond.  Either way, let me know!

[edit]For those who think I can talk to dead people (or they can talk to me), I haven't gotten anything since I posted this message six days ago, so there's some (questionable, of course) evidence that Marc isn't really gone.[/edit]

How does one determine whether or not a bitcoin heist is "official"?  Does the private key have to be used to sign a message of some sort that declares one or more of its outgoing transactions to be theft?  That would make sense to me, but that would mean 10% of all bitcoin produced has not been stolen either, unless I just haven't seen these signed messages.

When the governments responsible for hyperinflation engage in the hyperinflation, has purchasing power been stolen from those who were using that currency?  If you admit that it is, then you see that your claim about 10% is false.  If you think that it isn't, please explain what you mean by "stolen".


If I transfer coins from one address to another and then claim that those coins were stolen by someone else, is that a theft that you want included in the answer?

Excellent! Is there a way they can prove that they found it?  If so, does it require cooperation from the pool operator, or is it possible to make such a proof against the pool operator's wishes?

Perfect example then.  When a miner chooses the Slush pool for one version, any blocks found using their hashpower will have that version.  I assume that Slush pays people in both "effective" pools from rewards earned by each pool (so everything is shared).  So in order to reward a Slush pool participant for choosing one of the versions, I would have to find some way to get a bitcoin address for that participant.  Kano's idea of asking is great, but can't anyone claim to be the person who mined a block?  How would such a claim be verified?

Thanks again!

That's absolutely true, I don't really understand it.

So when a miner chooses which port to mine at with the pool because they want to make a decision, can that decision affect which version number a block uses?  It sounds like the answer is NO, their only decision is which port they use, and everything about the block will be the same no matter who solves it.

This, I could believe, if blocks 414056 and 414072 had the same version number (since they were both made by the same pool, Slush).  However, since those two blocks, made by the same pool, have different version numbers, I'm looking for an explanation.  Do you think the Slush pool operator is randomly choosing what version numbers to put on the blocks it solves?  I don't.

So I'm left thinking that the reason those two blocks have different version numbers is because of decisions made by two different people, each of whom wanted a different version number on the block. If that's true, is there a way they can prove that they are the person who made that choice, give then block that has the version number they wanted? 

I bet you didn't read this part of my post:
Some decisions miners make are reflected in the blocks they solve.
Or perhaps you don't believe that's true.  However, Slush mined both https://blockchain.info/block-height/414056 and https://blockchain.info/block-height/414072 which have different version numbers.  The difference in version numbers is a result of the owners of the machines having made some decisions which differ.  If I have $1,000,000 that I want to use to encourage people to use one of those versions instead of the other, then I DO need to know who solved the block.  I could rely on the pool operator to tell me, but in the spirit of bitcoin, I'd like to do it in a way that I can verify.

I understand that the creeps who want more control over others frown upon the person-to-person communications that support bitcoin as well as widespread sharing of occulted information, both of which are slowly destroying the oppression on which those parasites live, but that only makes such behavior more attractive to me.

I trust that you now understand me better, so perhaps you can help me improve my writing.  Is there something in my initial post that I could have written to make what you didn't understand any clearer?

Thanks!

Excellent info, Thanks!

Ok, so it's not public info on your site, but does your site provide a method the miner can use to prove that s/he solved the block?

Is it possible for a miner to place a fingerprint (lets say 8 bytes) into the data of a block so that he can later prove that s/he solved it (by providing a phrase like "my bitcoin address is 1..." the Sha256 hash of which ends with those 8 bytes)?

Right, I could just send some coin to the receiving address in the coinbase transaction, but usually, that address is for a large group of people. Since the extra BTC is intended for only the one who made the decision, sending to the coinbase address doesn't work.  How do I find the person who made the decisions that make that block have the qualities I'm looking for?

I asked this question on StackExchange, but in the interest of helping people vote with their bitcoin, I figured I'd reach out to bitcointalk.org too.  Feel free to discuss in either place.

No, man.  I don't think they would send out phishing emails afterwards, but maybe.  I think it would be far more profitable to use emails that have been verified to be Bitstamp customers' emails by sending them spam advertising Bitcoin-related services.

One strategy to distinguish between email addresses that are in use (on a particular site) and those that are not is to attempt to have a password reset email sent.  Some sites will respond differently depending on whether or not the email address entered exists in their database.  Better sites respond with "If your email address is in our database, we have sent you an email."

I just verified that bitstamp's response depends on whether or not the email exists in their database, so that may be what has been going on.  Once the hacker gets a response indicating that the email exists, they have confirmed that they have the email address of a person with a bitstamp account.

As I understand it, an EMP creates a wave of electrons in any medium that can hold electrons (any conductor).  Of course running electronics are more sensitive to such a wave, but any sensitive conductor (eg the pathways through an integrated circuit) would be influenced by the wave.  The way I imagine it is like how magicians in movies move water - or how them moon moves water in the tides.  An EMP is like an extra moon appearing a few kilometers away and creating a gigantic tidal wave in the oceans, and then disappearing, leaving the tidal wave to wreak whatever harm it may.  But we don't have an ocean of electrons anywhere, just pools and a long rivers (power transmission lines).  A 50-foot wave going up or down a river will damage a lot of pumps and other plumbing devices not designed to handle that kind of pressure.

Several other comments have confirmed my feeling that this concern is similar to worrying about getting hit by an asteroid; something so unlikely and with such consequences that this particular consequence isn't too important to consider, and for which people have prepared despite this fact.

Sorry for the alarming headline.

Google reports a single result for "hardcopy of the blockchain".  So I figured we might find such a phrase useful. I have looked a little into the possibility that all copies of the blockchain could be destroyed by an EMP (very unlikely, it seems), or by a solar flare (more likely, but still seems remote).

Would there be a few heroes who could produce tens of GBs of data with the special properties of the blockchain that make it uniquely identifiable in the event such a catastrophe occurred?  Do I want to be one of them?  Sure, why not.  I need like 10 DVDs and a day or three to burn them.

Honestly, though, I was hoping for some replies that say "Check out [link]" where such an effort is already being undertaken.

I'm always interested in seeing the proof that a law applies to a particular person or group of people.  Do you have a link for that?

Here in the U.S., we have a guy in Arizona (Marc Stevens) who recommends people always demand that the authorities provide evidence that the law applies to them, and a guy in Michigan (Peter Hendrickson) who wrote a book showing that Title 26 (the income tax) doesn't apply to most people.  Most Americans ignore these two fellows, but that is because they are scared of "The Man" and also psychologically damaged by public schooling (just like me, though I'm a somewhat more aware of the resulting problems and work to rectify them), and deceived by the propaganda of unethical players in the industry (Daniel B. Evans, Nancy G. Edmunds, Victoria A. Roberts).

If we take the wiser path of ignoring man-made laws (except those to which we have agreed in writing, ie contracts), there still may be a good reason for Bitstamp to "file accounts":
So what are the "benefits of a UK incorporation"?  Avoiding bad publicity is a good idea, but if it's a choice between catering to the criminal political class and getting publicly shamed for ignoring their stupid laws, I root for the latter every time.

I heard that btc-e is pretty good and quite honorable, so I've been using them.  They provide free margin in a generally closed market (it takes a day to move your accounting currency out of it, but transferring it in is immediate) and charge .5% for opening a position (long or short) and then nothing when you close it.

This was in response to:

I am looking forward to the ability to review my BTC borrowing.

Send this to support: "Try Airbank instead of RB group.  The account to which I asked you to deposit is actually not part of RB group anyway.  You guys must have screwed up your data somewhere."

And please keep us posted.  Even if you no longer want to withdraw, it might be worth trying just to see what happens as you push Bitstamp to make sense when they (mistakenly, we must assume) aren't making sense.

I, notplato on the Wiki, would like to help edit it too.

Thanks!
Dave.

My own thinking on this subject is in constant flux.  Thanks for everyone's input, and I hope more take a look and don't be bashful about changing your mind.

To simplify my position (pretty complicated in my head), I'll say that as soon as FSS-RBF or CPFP is a common solution to having failed to pay a high enough fee, I think I might switch my answer to "Let them stay full until a better solution is found."  I might switch to that answer sooner, but it sucks to be in limbo because you didn't change your (cheapskate) wallet's default fee.