Which one?

know whom?

Makes sense that it is just his old address.

If I recall correctly from the hundreds of posts on the topic, by the time he ran away he was living in a luxury apartment in Nicosia, is  that right?  Didn't Antonopoulos or some other bitcoin figure visit him there? If so, that address must be from before he moved to Nicosia, and the people who now live there must know nothing about him.

Also from those posts, I gathered that he moved from the UK to Cyprus ostensibly to be near his daughter, who had been taken to Cyprus by his ex-wife, who had remarried to someone who moved there to work in some military-related job.  I see that Pyla is in the UN buffer zone, next to a British military base, so that must be where Danny first moved to when he got to Cyprus.

 

Could it be that I missed the page on Satoshi's paper where he proves that bitcoins are impossible to steal?

You should tell the police, of course; they had an arrest warrant on him. 

(But that address may be old.  I suppose that the lawyer got it from the MtGOX database; if so he provided it months before he ran away.)

I don't know the details yet but it seems that it was based on phishing on the users' machines, not on stealing password files from the banks' servers.

Why would it be different with bitcoin (other than bitcoin transactions being impossible to reverse, and bitcoin accounts being anonymous)?

I think I have read somewhere of some bitcoins being stolen by hackers and being impossible to recover.  From some site in Japan, perhaps...

Governments will want to squash crypto if they find that it really works at hiding taxable income, bypassing AML and KYC, paying for illegal goods and services, financing subversion/terrorism/corruption in their soil, evading currency controls, weakening their currency, etc.

The first step will be to declare it illegal to use.  Most people then will not use it -- they would rather pay taxes than risk going to jail, no matter how debatable the risk is.  To deal with the small remaining black-market use, governments will do their usual things -- set up honeypot e-stuff sites, mixers, and TOR nodes, block IPs, hack into computers of suspects, raid and close mining installations, use big data tools to detect payments, whatever.

Squashing a crypto currency will be easier than squashing marijuana in many ways.  Marijuana can be grown in secret in a basement and used by small groups of people, with no contact with other groups.  Whereas to use crypto one needs real-time access to a single global network.  Tracking sales of marijuana requires physically watching and tailing the distributors for weeks, one agent for each man.  Whereas a single technician can monitor all IPs in the country and all transactions in a crypto network, from an office anywhere in the world.  And so on.

That situation is normal and quite common. The "current price" is the price of the last transaction.  After that transaction occurred, new orders came in, including some bids at 8 or more -- above the last transaction.

Sorry, I didn't watch the video, I just went by the comments in this thread. Not sure it makes much difference though...

You bet I am.  Didn't Tim Draper mention Brazil explicitly as a country where they expect to find buyers for those 30'000 BTC?

Fixed that for you 

(Too lazy now to read that Kuwait thing.)

They don't know by how much they lost, unless Tim Draper or some higher bidder told them.

Most, if not all, of the losing bidders probably were not "people who wanted more coins" but "people who saw a chance to make easy money if they were lucky and got some coins well below market" (like that guy who bid at 403$).  

Anyone who has that sort of money and believes that the price will go significantly higher than market should be buying on the exchanges, auction or no auction, until the market price got higher.  The fact that the price is now more or less stable ~650$, for example, means that everyone who still has money in hand expects to lose money if he bought for more than that.

So I don't think that any of the bidders, not even Draper, bid above 600$ (the max market price on Jun/27); and in fact I believe that they all bid at 550$ or lower.  An investor who got the coins at 550$ would be expecting to make 150'000$ profit, from gambling 1.8 1.65 million; or 1.5 million profit, from gambling 18 16.5 million.; which to me does not seem quite enough to justify entering such an uncertain venture.  Note that they were putting their own millions in the game, not someone else's.

By the same reasoning, if the auction was today, I believe that there would be no bid higher than 600$.

Someone already submitted a FOIA request for the USMS auction results, but no answer yet:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668635.msg7648454#msg7648454

You must be a programmer.  The first six months are 1 to 6, not 0 to 5. 

Do we know the price paid in any  "private" (over-the-counter, off-exchange) bitcoins-for-cash transaction that is relatively recent and substantial (say, a couple thousand BTC) ?

It is often debated whether such transactions occur above or below the current market price seen on the exchanges.  It would be nice to know at least one example.

Why don they try to sell their crap in the US or Europe, where the real money is? Why, hun? 

This species of primate used to live in families and small groups where old and children were protected; fights were limited by instinct, etc.   There were few things to fight about, and no band would try to "own" everything or enslave other groups, because it simply did not make physical sense.  So, by and large, no group was much better off than any other.

Weapons made the playing field much more unequal.  Those who had swords, guns, bombers etc. could "own" whole countries or continents, taking the best of the resources and forcing millions to work for their benefit.

I should know better than getting into firearm discussion, but...

Firearms give advantage to those who use them first; they make attackers more powerful, but are very poor for defense.  Those who spend all their time, money, and energy to acquire bigger guns will always prevail over those who try to live a honest life of productive work, even if they have guns.  A  machine gun trumps a revolver, a bazooka trumps a machine gun, a missile trumps a bazooka, and so on. 

Several of my relatives and acquanitances have been victims of armed robberies in their homes.  (A student frat next door to my house was robbed a couple of months ago, just after the students moved in.  Frats are popular targets, since the robbers can count on collecting 6-12 laptopts and that many smartphones, at the very least.) Some of the victims had guns.  One was a gun collector.  But not one was able to use a gun for defense; instead, the robbers took their guns too. 

In the typical armed robbery, one household member is made hostage when he/she enters or leaves the home, and is forced to open the doors for three or four bandits, guns in hand.  Usually handguns, but sometimes heavy machine guns.  Perhaps one or two family members could use the house gun that is stored somewhere; but only a totally demented person would try to, in those circumstances.  In all those cases, fortunately, the robbers left without harming anyone. 

It would make no difference if the victims had machine guns, bazookas, or portable tactical nuclear devices in their homes.  The robbers will always be one step ahead, and improvements in weapons technology and availability will only make the gap bigger. 

Even in the Wild West, the (relatively) best way to keep robbers at bay was to have the State nearby and on your side, with the biggest guns available.  That solution has its risks, of course, but by and large ordinary people with governments with guns have always fared better than outlaws with guns.

You lost me there.  The field was most level when our weapons were hands, feet, and teeth.  It has become steadily more uneven since then: the guys with more money generally have the best defenses and deadliest weapons, and technological advances have only amplified the difference. 

Why do you say that? I gave TWO examples of Brazilian governments that screwed up the economy egregiously -- so much that we are paying dearly for their mistakes till today and for god knows how long.

Buy I do believe that governments are inevitable and necessary.  If you try to destroy the government you would almost surely fail.   If perchance you succeed, it will be quickly replaced, most likely by a worse one.   The anarcho-libertarian Utopia, a world without government, would be a Mad Max world, and would not last for a year before a king of some sort would emerge.

Crypto will not protect you from a bad government or from economic collapse.  At best it will protect your money, but only as long as you do not use it.   You cannot spend any large amount of it without your government and all the bad guys in the neighbrhood noticing.  And, if it starts looking like crypto could let you escape your government's control, your government will quickly squash it.

No shining piece of technology can solve by itself a social/political problem like corruption, poverty, famine, opression, etc.. Such problems must be attacked by social/political struggle, starting with trying to get the best laws and government we can.  (And that must be done in the open -- one cannot be an effective social activist while protecting one's anonymity, it is either-or.)