Well, then, is there a slim chance that there is a fat chance that the new Star Wars movie has two hapless quacks in it?

Well, does that new Star Wars movie have any hapless ducks in it?

Which of these two questions should we ignore first?

Why should we play by the rules?

Someone stored the amount as a double-precision floating point number (which holds a little more than 15 significant digits), and printed it with 11 decimals after point, instead of 8.

Claims are not being collected yet.  As I understand it, the trustee is still figuring out what clients an claim and how he is going to validate the claims.  He has until May 2015 to collect the claims and until September 2015 to validate them.

The US exchange Kraken, though its Japan subsidiary, has just closed a contract with the trustee to help with the whole bankruptcy process, although it is not yet clear how exactly.   The trustee says that maybe the victims will be able to submit claims by online forms (instead of the usual paper mail), in which case Kraken may host and collect said forms.

There are new documents at the site www.mtgox.com with more details (they are in Japanese but have an English translation at the end).

Or had she just dumped her bitcoins for ChickenCoins?

Perhaps she was going to St. Ives, but was out of sacks?

Depends, was that before or after the other player took your bishop with his bike?

Are you sure? I understood that XRP could be used by the banks as a "bridging" currency when converting between currencies that are not directly exchangeable; but any other currency (EUR, USD, etc. -- even BTC) could be used instead.

Objection, Your Honor: are we supposed to continue playing soccer if one of the players keeps hitting the ball with a baseball bat?

Is it established that @SLok != @Inaba?

Question of Order, Your Honor: is it supposed to be "any question above", or "the question immediately above"?

About Ripple (sorry!): people should be aware that "the Ripple network" and "the Ripple coin" (XRP) are two very distinct things (unlike the bitcoin network and BTC).  The banks are interested in the Ripple network, which is being designed for their use.  The banks could use the currency XRP in that network, but do not have to.  So adoption of the network by the banks does not imply that XRP will become valuable, or even survive.   (That is what I understood; please correct if it is wrong.)

As noted before, that article is nonsense, in too many ways...

And, even if it did, volume often increases when the price starts moving, up or down.

And, besides, increased volume means more BTC being bought and the same number of BTC being sold.  Given that, and the existence of effective arbitrage, one must look closely at the order books and trades to tell whether the clients of a particular exchange are bullish or bearish compared to the other exchanges.

What... no Tinkerbell, again? 

Seriously, that rumor "Huobi has re-enabled bank deposits" now seems to be a flat out lie.   Like "Dell accepts bitcoin", "Mozilla accepts bitcoin", "Microsoft accepts bitcoin", etc.. 

I think that it is still working as the technical experiment that it was meant to be: a test of whether the PoW/reward/majority protocol would indeed motivate miners to mine, and prevent sabotage of a decentralized ledger.  

Bitcoin was not meant to be a replacement or alternative to credit cards, a sound investment, a way to evade law enforcement, to weaken governments, to turn losers into millionaires, etc..  Others appropriated it and have been trying to redefine it as some or all of these things.

The technical experiment has worked for five years in spite of (not because of) its massive "adoption" by half a million people for those purposes.  From the purely technical point of view, the only problem that has surfaced in these 6 years is the centralization of mining, due to use of specialized chips and economies of scale.   That development was not expected, and may spell its technical failure.

Bitcoin may be failing only for some of the things it was never meant to be used for.

No, sorry, I was busy at Troy, desperately trying to warn my compatriots that that Greek horse could be a trojan horse.  But they just told me to stop spreading FUD and fuck off.

The Y2K bug was not a disaster because, thanks to the harping by the FUDsters, it was mostly fixed or hacked around in time.  How can you tell that it was pointless FUD and waste of money?

Unfortunately, 95% of people cannot believe that a real risk can happen until they see it happening.  The other 5% are dismissed as paranoids and FUDsters before it happens, and quickly forgotten afterwards.  One could fill volumes with cases where warnings by "FUDsters" were ignored, and then the disaster happened much worse than their worst case scenarios. See Fukushima.

The BCI debacle was caused by a bug accidentally introduced in the javascript that people downloaded to generate the keys and sign the transactions.  The bug was fixed after a few hours, but even so it affected hundreds of people and allowed the "theft" of more than 500 BTC -- fortunately, most of them by a "benevolent thief" who returned them to BCI.  In fact, the extent of the damage is still not known precisely, more compromised accounts are still being found.

The BCI javascript was open source, and the buggy version was duly posted on github.  It was not discovered by looking at the code, but because the "benevolent thief" was continuosly monitring the blockchain for certain type of weak signatures, and started seeing many of them.  The programmer who committed the bug acted irresponsably, but apparently within his normal privileges and habits.  Couldn't it have happened with the Trezor firmware instead of the BCI javascript?

Now imagine a criminal aiming his skill and resources to expliting that type of attack...

Do you know of an exchange where I can buy bitcoins in 2009?