Quote
We make this assumption that miners are invested in the long term network prospects, years out, and therefore would never double spend attack.
94k is alot but this long term supply chain of equipment investment is no small thing, also they are never likely to be so well organised as to present 51%. I remember years ago there was great concern that a pool of miners was approaching too close to a majority of the hashing power and receiving many complaints they were being counter productive by appearing as a latent threat. In theory that results in a lower price as less trust is then given to the network as secure, I dont think thats the case right now as its clearly a mistake for a decentralized network.
Quote
there are so many useless and unneeded transactions I think in order to distract any curious cat looking into their history. what is this I'm hearing about authorities having control over the coins? since when any governmental authorities could have access to bitcoins? maybe it's their plan to fool exchanges and pools, because if you say it's the "hacker" then pools might avoid including those TXs in any blocks but if it was the so called "good guys" transferring then it's all fine. 
