Since Gillette started these antics I never really shaved anymore. If people start looking at me weird I just use my wife's Gillette to tame the facial hair.

Coinbase is not buying your Bitcoin. As an exchange it merely facilitates transactions between their users. You offer your $2,000 worth of Bitcoin on their market, and another user may then buy it for your asking price. That user already has USD deposited on Coinbase, or they wouldn't be allowed to trade. Therefore you will get their money and should be able to withdraw that.

Now there is a grain of truth to your reasoning: Sometimes exchanges pay their ongoing losses from client funds, hoping there won't be a bank run. This is either bad practice or flat out illegal. After a while this will result in balances that cannot be withdrawn.

PS: But what if no counterparty is available to buy your coins? Now you will not be able to trade for your desired price. You can either wait or accept a lower bid. A process called arbitrage will keep prices on each exchange roughly in alignment.

I believe you're interpreting your reference material incorrectly. You quote the sources for all energy while we are are focusing our debate on electricity. The electricity sources are reported as follows: Gas 45%, Coal 32%, Renewables 13%, Oil 4%, Nuclear 3%

Many of them work automatically, but some do not trigger the lastpass popup on their login screen, and some don't properly fill out the form once you select the correct lastpass entry. In those cases you'd have to copy-paste manually from the Lastpass app.

No, the lastpass app can be unlocked by fingerprint and/or PIN if you keep it logged in.

Extension installation is quite easy on windows, and takes care of multiple browsers in one go. The login process is a bit cumbersome indeed, but you can configure it to keep you logged in or log you out based on various conditions.

It doesn't work that way, this is a tragedy of the commons type situation.

The disincentive to forward does not come from solving the current block, but from *not* solving the current block. If the current block is solved by someone else and you have withheld a transaction, you have a new opportunity to reap the transaction fee by solving the block after the current one.

To see this clearly we can take it to the extreme: suppose all transactions run through you, and you withhold all of them until you find a block yourself. Then no one else will gain any transaction fees from solving a block, and you will get all of the fees once you find a block. That's a definite advantage.

Also there was an episode of 'The lone gunmen' (a short-lived spinoff from X-files) that aired in march 2001:

"The plot of the first episode, which aired March 4, 2001, involves a US government conspiracy to hijack an airliner, fly it into the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists, thereby gaining support for a new profit-making war."

Qik does just that: stream your video to its site in real time as fast as your mobile connection allows you to. However, it uses a proprietary recording app to accomplish that. You can also set the movies to private/shared from within that interface, chat with your viewers, etc.

In a simple model, it seems to me that three variables factor in to the financial aspect of committing a crime: the profit from the crime, the chance of getting caught and the penalty to expect when caught. If those add up to a positive amount, you may on average expect to gain from this kind of crime. In a formula:

ProfitExpectation = Profit - ProbabilityOfBeingCaught x Penalty ProfitExpectation > 0? Then the crime pays

Coming back to the issue of file sharing. The most conservative estimates about the number of people illegally sharing copyrighted material is in the millions at least. Only a handful of those people face penalties for it. Plugging that information into the formula above, we can argue that the penalty should be extraordinary high to counterbalance the expected profit from file sharing. ('profit' in a broad sense, not necessarily financial).

On the other hand, when the powers that be are able to increase the chance of being caught to let's say 50%, the punitive damages could be far far lower. Damages in the range of $3 per song for example, because the Profit expectation would still be negative and people would technically be deterred from file sharing just as much.

Of course this is likely a gross oversimplification of the decision-making process of a criminal mind, but i wonder if this kind of reasoning is used when establishing punitive damages for file sharing?