Why are you using the same password (or even very similar passwords) on multiple sites, especially for sites that involve sensitive personal healthcare and financial data? Are you aware that this very practice is the source of greatly increased rates of personal information compromise and identity theft, as compromising one set of credentials makes it much easier to access other systems? Further, are you aware that you're rolling the dice every time you create an account anywhere when it comes to whether the password you supply will even be properly hashed? Have you managed to entirely miss the nastier cases involving large organizations storing passwords in plaintext, or using deeply flawed hashing measures (outdated/weak algorithms, failing to use salt, etc) that fall to analysis within seconds?

With practices like yours, why are you dispensing security advice?

The GP asked about vector animation, not embedded video. These are different things; you can make videos of vector animations, but you can also have vector animations presented and controlled as fully accessible trees of objects in the DOM. Why are you talking about videos?

It's worth noting the GP's response to your post is quite accurate, however.

Flash is on its last legs. You need to start moving to HTML5 based solutions. A Google query for "HTML5 animation editor" will yield a wealth of options.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand instances of "alleged".

Quoting the original text:

I don't think the poster was intending to imply that BTC transactions are anonymous. In reply to his/her post, reiterating the oft-missed point that the protocol has no design attributes intended to enforce anonymity isn't splitting hairs; it's more a conversational response referencing the GP above that post. Also, an entity doesn't have to directly link itself to BTC transactions to be revealed as a participant, given sufficient analysis of all transactions. 1-1 transactions don't do much to frustrate traffic analysis, either. These are points that other posters have made, and you have missed.

Please read what I said again, and then read the rest of the thread beneath that comment.

Prove it. It's likely he had a number of eventual destinations in mind, unless he's a complete idiot, which he doesn't appear to be.

This demonstrates extremely thin understanding of the conditions under which it would be useful to torture someone, and of the actual information that could be gained as a result.

There are many ways of ensuring information gets out in the event of your demise. Reference "dead man's switch." Cheers.

Roger that (pun intended, if my guess is correct). Thanks for the backup; it's a bit unsettling how many people are taken seriously on topics like these when they don't actually know what they're talking about. Oh well, I suppose we get what we get.

A finite, but as of now undetermined, amount of data was conveyed to journalists. I am keenly interested in seeing objective proof that the sum of those disclosures is equal to the sum of all information in his possession. If you're planning on using Snowden's public statements in support of your view that everything he has is already in someone else's hands, I suggest you consult the dictionary for the definition of "naive."

I served in the United States Navy as a submariner, and I've been rather intimately involved with communications networks since around the age of eleven. You might be surprised to learn that I applaud Snowden's revelations regarding pervasive NSA surveillance of American citizens at home, abroad, and in interaction with allied nations. I doubt you have the depth of experience or context to fully appreciate why I applaud it, though, given your choice of the word "stole" to describe the materials in question. I prefer the term "returned," or perhaps "disclosed," as in "disclosed to the American people what their government had been doing in violation of their own Constitution," a document I swore an oath to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Again, I doubt you truly understand what that means.

Given Snowden's background, it doesn't seem he has issues with divulging information. As part of fleeing to Russia, I'm certain he understood that he would have many conversations with many interesting people. I hardly think any sort of "working over" will be necessary in this case.

Indeed on all points, and I'm still trying to figure out why people keep making the assumption that identity protection or obfuscation measures of any sort are part of the protocol. Maybe it's the "crypto" part of "cryptocurrency" that causes some kind of automatic correlation, although if that were the case one would think that the widespread use of cryptographic mechanisms for identity verification might encourage the opposite assumption.

I don't understand why people keep assuming Bitcoin is designed to be anonymous. It isn't.

I'll expand upon my last comment a bit: if I had a dollar for every time I've heard the expression "I'm an expert at [insert thing here]" from someone who has the benefits of age and allegedly tons of experience with [insert thing here], and I subsequently have to fix whatever busted server/network/software config was put in place by the "expert," I'd be a wealthy man. Instead, at 32 I've learned that assumptions about competence should never be made based on things like UIDs. You can hope someone who has been in a field for a while knows what he's doing, but you cannot assume it, as you'll simply see that assumption proven wrong too many times and with too many nasty consequences.

Your assumption would be incorrect. Someone existing for a set period of time on this planet is not a reliable indicator of knowledge. That's one of the hardest things I've had to learn in fifteen years of systems work.

You've demonstrated you have no idea how these attacks work, why they're important, or even how BGP itself works.