just to let you guys know on here, I tried it out before, and it doesn't allow you to bet on all of the cities they list on there... I would say around 80% of the cities they boast doesn't work.  It seems to be only for major cities.

IF it gets spent at all... I don't believe he/she will, but then again who knows.  I believe that it is a very bad thing if a currencies ecosystem will essentially collapse if Satoshi were to start spending his coins at all, in speculation that Satoshi himself doesn't believe bitcoins are worth it anymore... Like what americanpegasus pointed out earlier in the thread.

What kind of website do you lurk that shows a bunch of neckbearded dorks shaking their asses and jerking other neckbeards... "egos"? I certainly haven't seen that in the services section and sure as hell don't want too...

I really don't think it will make the "headlines" you're thinking about, when it comes to mainstream news picking up on it... but in the bitcoin community it would be huge news.  But why would he pay people to "teach" them how to use his coin? That doesn't really make any sense.

Just curious, has anyone in that area actually bought something with either bitcoin or, better yet, Monero for that matter?  I would feel like in Portugal it would be a tough sell to try to persuade them to get bitcoin or Monero in the first place for that matter... Or a lot of people have already adopted crytpos around that area?

Very interesting though, I wish there were people who readily accepted crypto currencies like that around here at farmers markets.

So in your guys opinion, do you think that Boolberry will be able to run along side with Monero in the long run; or is this a cut throat match for a "best cryptonote" title that will enable said coin to be the "go to" coin for private transactions?  I can't see a scenario where two coins with essentially the same design that fills a very specific niche to both be successful in the long run of things.

IMO, ethereum doesn't hold any revolutionary qualities and shouldn't be an altcoin that one would invest for the long run.  I truly think it was meant to be a hype kind of coin for pump and dumpers to make a quick buck on.

Yeah I totally agree with you on this aspect... Monero does possess a very good anonymity feature that no other coin can really boast.  I have already hedged a decent portion of my funds into Monero now, since the recent price drop from some whale that dumped tons of XMR for whatever reason. 

As for the confirmation times, I just read and researched a bit about this new coin coming out... eMunie.  Seems to be stupid fast with the confirmation times, and has a really good chance of being a major contender way later on down the road.  It still has yet to be released, but during the beta test, it seemed to get a lot of good reviews.

Thread is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0

Why no one here has posted about Monero? I think this would be a good candidate for discussion, because a lot of people sure do like talking about it and has always had a consistent following over the past year.

Other than that NXT might be a good choice as well... Another coin I just was looking into was eMunie (which hasn't been released yet) that shows a real potential of being, literally, the fastest coin to be put on the market.

The thread for that is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0

I don't think that part would matter.  If they really wanted to piss everyone off and gain more traction (I think this is what they actually would want to do) I think if you aren't in the system already they would just make a new review and put your name on it which then they will make you apart of the system; whether you want to be on there or not.  This way, if/when you find out you are on there, it will make you want to get the app and dispute the bad claim or possibly just see what the person said.

But yeah, this is going to be bad... I can feel it.

This is a cool project, and cryptos need to find a way to be as fast as possible for the masses to want to adopt, due to their fast paced life styles, IMO... so when do you think the official release of this coin will be?  Any ideas?

Idk, I think the "bit"  system works well enough considering it's 100 satoshi's and most everyday transactions happen around the ball park of 100 bits - 100 K bits... I see what you're getting at, but in general, when it comes to currencies like this, you're going to run into a lot of zeros regardless.

I've always wondered this.. what is the deal with people being willing to pay for a reddit account? It's not like they will get you any where with it (I don't think, atleast) ... I mean yeah, it might be cool to have a 9 year old account... but what's the purpose for?

So, this is a really neat idea for a new coin and sounds like a possible winner in the long run of things, if bitcoin hits a real snag and can't come up with a plan of attack to fix the block size problem.  But I was curious, so each "node" in the sense would have to be distributed geographically to be able to adequately send transactions in any part of the world?  I'm just having trouble understanding how this could work without the blockchain system, and can't seem to grasp the idea that if say, no nodes where on the continent of Australia... then it would be very hard to transact to anyone that would want a transaction sent to them if they didn't run a "node themselves" ...

I was trying to read a majority of the thread, but honestly, I'm not in the mood for diving into reading a whole thread right now.

Also, has this coin been implemented yet? Or is there a specific release date?

BIP 100 always has reminded me of what a Union represents in the US. Workers (in this case miners) will have a say so in the minimal wage for their job that they need to perform to get paid. If the "boss" doesn't comply (in this case, everyone who transacts in bitcoins), then the workers will go on strike. 

This could be very devastating for bitcoin in general. No workers means no security in transactions... Unions in the beginning meant to give people optimal working conditions and not promote a slave type of labor; since in this case we're talking about miners who use computers to do their work, this isn't necessarily valid.  I understand that miners are coming to the brink of whether they make a profit or not, but obviously something needs to be done to create a less costly way to mine coins.  If that were to happen then everything will be perfectly fine.

I'm not quite sure of this, because I have never thought of running such a site myself... but if you were to run your campaign for the site using tor, while also hosting the site through a VPS in another company that's outside of the US; wouldn't that adequately hid you from the government and thus not taking you from your house with handcuffs on?  I think this would work, but I wouldn't know and really wouldn't care since I don't plan on running such a site. I don't like the Feds and never would want to put myself in a position to meet them at any point in time lol.

This was by far the worst post I've ever read on bitcoin talk, ever. Congratulations.

But yeah, Google wouldn't want to stiffen something that clearly works, especially if they are going to invest in it.  If they invest in bitcoin, they are going to do everything in their power to make bitcoins functionality even better and possibly raise bitcoins price to the roof.  That is if Google ever does do this; which brings me up to my second point.  Where did you get this idea from?  Did you read this from an article or something?  You didn't provide any evidence of this or anything...

That wouldn't be beneficial to people who want to remain somewhat anonymous.  Making them known who they are and personally sending them rewards, not to their wallet, but to that person in general, would not be beneficial by any means.  I think it would be cool enough for the band to offer exclusive material on an album in general, or just give them a discounted rate.

This statement is not necessarily saying that banks will use bitcoins in general... it's just suggesting that they might use bitcoin or use the blockchain technology that bitcoin created.  So, in other words, they may use the blockchain in ways to make secure transaction of fiat. They would be able to do this in two ways:
1) Whoever wants to transact fiat through block chain would have to buy bitcoin directly from the market and transact to, lets say, another bank.  That bank will then receive the payment after confirmation then automatically revert the bitcoin(s) back into fiat and sell back directly into the market.  It would be secure, and would only take about 15 minutes to do so the risk of fluctuations in the btc market wouldn't necessarily be a factor because of the short amount of time the cash is invested in the bitcoin market.

2) Banks would implement their own "coin" which uses their own blockchain.

I don't really understand the point of this question... I would assume most of us here on the forum are around the ages of 17-30, so to even speculate on what it would mean for you, personally, in the year 2100 would be pointless because we'll be in the ground by then.

But for the sake of conversation, I think one crypto will inevitably rule the world of finance... maybe not even bitcoin.  Conveniences of having a currency backed by a blockchain is known that it would be beneficial to a lot of people, especially wiring money internationally and securely.  But if this block size debate doesn't get solved soon then I believe something in the near future will take bitcoins place because more people will lose faith in bitcoin core as a whole.