Too bad, I would like to know what is wrong with them.  Do you disagree with the numbers?

The total transaction fees, for example, seem to have been stuck at 10--15 BTC/day (not kBTC!) since December, and are slowly decreasing in fact:
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0

Good try, but I find that proof somewhat unconvincing.  Is that the best you can do?   

As for Huobi, if you find it hard to disprove that 90% of the blockchain traffic is "fake", maybe you can provide evidence that any of Huobi's volume is "fake", in the same sense (a trader selling to himself).

Is he taking these questions personally?

I thought that there was a much shorter deadline for responding to a FOIA request (2 months? 3 months?)

No hard numbers, of course.  (But who cares for numbers if there is a large colorful pic.)

If they guarantee X% minimum return in CNY, that is simply Huobi borrowing CNY at a fixed interest rate. So?

If they guarantee X% minimum return in BTC, that is not "low risk" investment at all; and the deal will be most lucrative for Huobi if the BTC price drops. 

Anyway those 2000 BTC provided by the investors will be immediately sold for CNY to pay for the hardware expansion.

Two obvious reasons why someone would want to move bitcoins between wallets of his own are (1) tumbling and (2) hotwallet/coldwallet management.  Someone may also be (3) torture-testing wallet software.  (All the blockchain traffic could easily be created by a single person with a modest BTC capital.)

Last time I checked, very few transactions included fees.  Right now the mining network is financed by "printing" new bitcoins, to the tune of 10% of the existing bitcoins per year.  (That is, 10% yearly inflation, in the strict sense of the term...)  Since address creation and transactions are free, there is nothing to discourage fake blockchain traffic.

Fake traffic may include also (4) intentional attempt to inflate the transaction volume.  Right now, if the cost of the mining network were to be paid by fees rather than "inflation tax", the fee would have to be nearly 4% of the total transaction amount.  But if fees were charged then the "fake" volume would all but disappear.  If only 50% of the transactions are real e-payments, then the cost of processing one transaction would be 8% of its amount; if only 10% is real, the cost would be 40%.  Thus someone may be inflating the volume to hide this unpleasant fact.

Some blockchain traffic is also (5) people depositing and withdrawing BTC from exchanges and other services with individual accounts.  Although that traffic is not "fake" by my defintion, it is still sort of fake because the BTC on the exchange still belong to the client, logically. 

(Bitcoins changing accounts inside the exchanged do not generate blockchain traffic, but they are not real e-payments either, since there is no counterpart transfer of goods or services -- merely a swap of one currency for another.)

Metcalfe's law seems to hold when the quantities are plotted in logscale over the last 5 years.  However, the last year is compressed to a tiny area at the top right corner of that plot.  At that scale, a deviation of 90% would hardly be noticed, since it would span less than 20% of the vertical scale.  If the data is plotted only over the last year, the fit is not that good.  And, anyway, if the traffic had been 90% "fake" over the last 5 years, Metcalfe's law would hold just as well.

Don't drink and trade. 

More than 90% of the transaction volume (transaction count and total BTC output) on the blockchain is "fake" -- that is, between addresses with the same owner. 

Prove that this statement is wrong.

(Evidence that it is correct: the way it has changed with time for the past year.)

Why would the court want to send money (or bitcoins) to someone without knowing his identity?

Why do people consider me a bear?  

Although I am as skeptical as ever about bitcoin's ultimate success, I have said many times that I won't dare to guess what the price will do in the short or even medium term.  I can see scenarios where it may drop to ~150$ or less (e.g. China dumping everything and dropping out of the market) and scenarios where it may get over 1000$ again (e.g., a lot more demand in the US/Europe), although I would rather not guess the probabilities of those scenarios.  

The guess of a bottom at ~450$ is based on the fact that the price appeared to be stable at that level from Apr/28 to May/20, and bounced at that level on Aug/18. My tentative interpretation of those facts is that
* 450$ is the "consensus" price that the Chinese market found after the PBoC stopped interfering with bitcoin;
* the rise starting May/20 was due to rumors of some impending positive develpment;
* the fall from Aug/10--18 was due to those hopes being deflated; and
* the bounce after that was just a "dead cat bounce"

Well, if one intends to sell, one should first tell everybody "trust me, now it is a good time to buy and hold". 

People are probably confident that the price will not go below 450$ (there is some justification for that hope), and eventually will rise again. 

I don't see why it is hilarious.  How could the court return the spoils to the clients, without knowing who they are?

Don't you worry, for example, that having all clocks turn clockwise could mess up the rotation of the Earth?

Collectig dividends (although Apple has been notorious for holding back dividends as reinvestment and cash reserves, IIRC).

A prudent bear will wait until 2015-01-01 to ask that question. 

I saw that detail in several other posts.  However I believe that he actually said something closer to "we may look into it".  But in Japanese culture (the old-fashioned one at least)  a flat-out "no" is considered too rude, and that phrase could be just a polite way of avoiding to say "we do not intend to" (which would probably have elicited some angry responses from the crowd).

Anyway, that is not the question I asked.  The question is how the claims of each client are to be computed: by the balances in the final MtGOX ledger, or by deposits minus withdawals.  Whether the recovered amounts are returned in BTC or yen is an independent decision.

From the point of the courts, using the MtGOX ledger seems dicey.  One problem is that there may be no way to ensure that the ledger has not been tampered with, or even that the accounts belong to the claimants.  Whereas, the money deposits and withdrawals can be certified by the banks, and those in BTC can be partially verified in the blockchain.

Good to know, but since finding answers is supposed to be harder than asking questions, will that thread ever catch up with this one?

The problem is that the client's opinion may not be relevant, if there are laws/precedents that determine how claims are assessed.  If the law says to use method X, and one client tells Kobayashi that he prefers method X, it will almost certainly be method X.  Even if all clients say that they prefer method Y, Kobayashy may say, "sorry, I must follow the law and use method X; thereafter you get together and re-distribute the spoils among yurselves as you like".

That question should be posed to Japanese bankruptcy lawyers and/or to Mt. Kobayashi.  Didn't any clients retain Japanese lawyers to advise/represent them at the meeting?

Should we start another thread,  'Answer the previous answer with an answer', just to keep the universe in equilibrium?