you have 2 week to think about it before they become more expensive.
you have 41 days to think about it before you can't buy them until their genesis block goes live.

you can't trade them until then, so you're taking a huge risk.
I like ethereum and I think those guys deserve some credit for what they've accomplished sofar, but I want to see any of those tokens stand the test of time before I am putting any money in stuff like MSC, NXT, XCP, ETH etc...

Ok, right... I got two questions mixed up.

1) Is it entrapment when the undercover agent makes a transaction to another person (somebody unrelated to the exchange) or Bitcoin-address which can not be identified?
Because there is no clear benefit how the person benefits. Would that be considered the same as if the undercover agent would give it for free or is it still a transaction because you requested that address.

2) Do you think undercover agents are willing to transfer money to (escrow) Bitcoin addresses in advance in order to catch the dealers? Wouldn't that greatly increase the cost of catching these guys?

I'm wondering how entrapment works with Bitcoin.
For example where law-enforcement offers to buy illegal goods or services from somebody.

What you usually see in the media is that once somebody names a price or accept payment, you get arrested. How does that work for transactions where the payment doesn't go to you directly? For example, a person makes the exchange once the police-officer donates money to a charity or a Bitcoin address that you don't control.

Wouldn't it also make entrapment much more expensive if criminals request bitcions to be put into escrow transactions before they make the exchange or even bring out the goods. If the suspects are somehow forced to hand over the private keys they will be incriminating themselves.

How could this be solved by U.S. law?

Could sending many dust transactions to a stealth address be a way to inconvenience the receiver? Or perhaps a way to force them to reveal sensitive details?

Interesting!
If somebody is interested, could the source perhaps be adapted to use BitMessage instead of a centralized server?

For example:
- User sends message with requested CoinJoin transaction to a BitMessage channel or mailing list
- Others that are listening to the list and willing to join the transaction

This way, the IP address wouldn't be releaved.

Since the fundraiser is now delayed and a testnet will be run first, the discussion about that seems to be unnecessary. So lets focus on the technical aspects and development for now.

I think Jemery preferred "Reusable addresses", because this type of address can be re-used by multiple payers, without losing privacy.
- Mike, Wladimir, Odinn and Gregory agreed with this.

Other than that. Excelent work genjix! Great to see that SX is well supported.

That is why I'm saying: I'm not interested in doing something with the transaction volume, but would like to see the amount of money that people spend on transaction fees in total on using each system. You are talking about trying to manipulate daily growth of a single system, but that won't work if Bitcoin already collects $11.000 in fees daily, and you spend an extra 1 XRP ($0.028)

If this is how you want to spend your money, I am not going to judge you. You make up part of the crowd that is willing to pay for using the transaction network. If people are willing to spend their XRP on that, they will be willing to spend their BTC on that. This ends up being a part of the whole in the total daily transaction fees.

You can only do that for so long before you run out. If you are willing to spend money on that... go ahead, apparently it's worth something to you. The amount of transactions doesn't matter. It's the total amount of money that people are willing to spend on using the payment network, which shows it's value to people's lives. Once $11,000 worth of XRP is being spent every day on transaction fees, I would say it has a larger value than when it has spikes of 1XRP each day.

I understand that subsidy keeps the fees low, but I am talking about the amount of money that people paid for using the network. Same with Ripple. XRP have value on the market, yet people are willing to spend them on transactions. The total amount of money that people are willing to spend using it, seems to me a very strong indicator of the true value that a payment network currently has.

I'm only talking about the money people are willing to spend on fees. Whether it is one person spending a lot or lots of people spending a little, should not matter the economic impact is the same. I don't think it can be easily gamed by the users, unless they want to advertise their coin by spending money on transaction fees. They will run out of money eventually. People can either sell their coins or use them. Using them costs money and if they do, apparently that has more added value. People only spend money on transaction fees if they benefit from it in other ways.
You're right about that. However, I would like to see it displayed to make a more fair comparison.

Could you display the amount of money that people are willing to pay to use the network based on transaction fees? If you can add the Transaction Fees in USD spent in the past 24h, it is probably a better indicator which currency is more widely used and adding value to people's lives.

If prices go down in a bear market like now, people will start to spend them. They realize that on the short term, they have nothing to gain from holding. The corrections are good for business because the money starts flowing and nobody wants to hold their bitcoins if they lose value.

Ah I didn't consider this scenario ... that might actually be a good way to convince miners to invest in new hardware, while not completely losing their old investments.

This would make all the ASIC mining equipment worthless... wouldn't miners need to sell all their coins to recover their losses? With the network ending up less secure. That could completely crash the market and people spreading over to different altcoins to hedge their bets.

Can somebody lay down the scenario step-by-step (preferably numbered) what needs to happen for the Bitcoin community to recover from this?
I'm thinking about choice in new algorithm(s), politics, duration, which software needs changes, securing the network from the start, convincing the current miners, etc.

Switching to mBTC wasn't one to increase the Bitcoin price.... it was done because the price per bitcoin rose.
People didn't want to see the price of BTC0.00xxxx for a coffee, they wanted to have whole numbers like mBTCx.xx

If they can't exchange it for CNY, then I don't think they want to take the risk.

A lot of people saw Bitcoin coming. Few people envisioned it exactly the way it works now.
Nobody knew the full solution on how to create it so it would actually work, but there was a large crowd of mathematicians, cryptography enthusiasts and early digital currency developers who were looking into this. Hashcash was invented by Adam Back in 1997 mind you. Some people today were already trying to invent proof-of-work based currencies 10 years earliers and the public somehow lost interest. Plenty of fiction back then was already talking about the idea of digital credits. The words 'bit-coin' and 'bit-gold' 'e-gold'  'e-cash' were pretty popular.