Are not idiots and and not bad guys. Are only not so capable like the others (most of them will have the same problem if will continue) to resist at the addiction that gambling create. It is not their fault. It is that they had from their parents. From their DNA. No one can choose its DNA. Is something given only from your parents.

Gambling is scientifically known that soon or later give addiction. If you are addicted no one can control you in losing money gambling and you yourself cannot control yourself in losing money. This kind of people need help. Their are only victims. Victims of the owners of the casinos which allow that they lost their control because in this way the owners can win more.

They need medical help and if this help will be, their will be again owner of themselves. Normal people like you and me. 

Thanks for the comment anthonycamp.

I'm sorry to not give my opinions to you because both us are a little out in English. So, a little you and a little me, make possible my inability to understand well your thoughts. And without this kind of understand I cannot give opinions about those. 

Where is the not correct part of my sentence?  

Let me explain better. I wanted to tell exactly that you tell in the first part but in the second I had another aim and another meaning. If behind the digital coin could be an unknown group of peoples (or only one rich person) for you and create this coin (closed or open source this is not the problem in this case) you will believe this coin? I think not because behind this coin is something that has not your trust: you don't know who are they. This case is the case when we have e centralized digital coin (group of people who own this coin, or even one rich person) and you normally cannot trust this digital coin. So who is behind the digital coin is very important for you (and for everyone I think). This is the case bolded by you in my phrase and its meaning (what i wanted to tell with it).

It's ok now?  

Bitcoin is another case which have nothing to do with the entire phrase. Bitcoin is decentralized. In my phrase is told only for the various centralized cases.  

I like more and more your answers. Are reasonable and full with truth. Really, thank you to much for giving your thoughts in this thread. I want to clarify only one thing with you. You don't like any kind of the centralization except the governative/central banks one? Or in other words. You tell that you have no problem to use a national digital coin which will be a centralized product. Then don't like the centralization as a quality in all the other option given below. That's mean that the centralization, as a quality, has to do not with the fact of being centralized in itself, but with the fact who is behind the centralization? That's correct?

Good. This kind of answer have meaning for me.

I have to tell only something about your bolded thoughts. If the human kind would be satisfied with the existing inventions we shall be yet in the time of the wheel mentioned by you. In other words if we will be happy with something we have and a priory will reject any other new thing without analyze that, at least, bitcoin would be yet only in the white paper of Satoshi, we will write everything only with or hands and go at work only walking. This only for the theory.

As for my post I asked about something I know they hate (from numerous posts read by me and various expressions written in to many ways but that in essence can be named as "hate") and not only for the coin. The users of this forum don't hate the new coin but the centralized one. I asked about the centralization and then for the coin. They connect the centralization (maybe have right) with the abuse, the corruption, the manipulation, the injustice and other unpleasant things had from the governments or various authorities in their countries. At least this is my guess. This their big problem are spreed even in the kind of coin they love. Not without reason I write clear and without any equivoque THE SECURITY OF PRODUCTION of this coin and not without reason give to this coin the same qualities like bitcoin. The only difference is being centralized the first and decentralized the second.

Normally if they like bitcoin have no reason to not love the second one. Who cares if have owner or not. If it is the same product and nothing change from bitcoin why not like it like bitcoin? Make no sense. The only reasonable answer TO MY POST must be: If are the same thing normally I would like it. Maybe (or for sure) bitcoin a little more because I am affectionated to it (and will give to it more support always because of this) but I would like and use even the second one because have the same qualities. Are the qualities which make the people like bitcoin. Cannot dislike the same qualities have from another product clone of bitcoin. Repeat: have no sense.

But almost no one has answered to my post. Or only partially. Everyone has answered to his post: the post in him's mind. Giving and making free interpretations connected with their hypothetical coin (or its production, or their conception of centralization) in their mind.

This is a big problem. If I want to know something I have not the answer of that I write but the answer of that the poster has in his mind about that something that I have write. This is really a big problem.

Thanks for the comment.

There are to many things to discus in your post but I will leave those because are out of the aim of this thread. I'm answering only to those which can do with it.

A centralized digital coin (produced in the way mentioned in man post) can work like a clock in the same way like the decentralized one. There are not any obstacle to realize this. If you know one or some it will be pleasure for to read those here written by you.

I don't see any quality in the "nature" of every kind of digital coin (produced in the way mentioned by me in my man post) which is against its being centralized. If you know some or even one such quality, I invite you to show me that (those). I will learn something new.

Where have you read (in any of my posts here) that the coin created and for the which are asked thoughts is "something that can be infinitely replicated or manipulated in any possible direction"? In this case you are talking for something that exist in your mind and not in my posts. I agree with you when you write that the "users must know that the system they're using can't be abused in that way otherwise they'll abandon it". But where have you found (in my writings) the possibility of the the existence of this option in the production of the digital coin about which I write in my pasts? Show me the phrase or the sentence. I'm obligated to tell that this is again in your mind and not in my words.

As for the last sentence, first, who told that the digital coin mentioned by me it will be made with closed source one, and second, why one closed source digital coin must be for sure and always manipulable, misused, etc. etc. To many software work excellently (or are the bests in the market) and rule the entire world even are not produced with open source (google, all the Microsoft products etc.). All they are centralized products. Why this mew one product supposed by me must be different from those?

And at the end: Have to tell something about THE MAIN POST (only for the things written there) and not for other free interpretations made from you? If yes, I will be happy to read those.

Good but we are at the same point like before.  I am asking about another kind of creation of the digital coin not like you mention in your second post. The not possible manipulated one. It is for that that I need your opinion. IF this kind of coin exist AND IS CENTRALIZED (from an technology that CANNOT be manipulated) what it will be your behavior? So, forget for the moment your meaning in your mind for the centralized coin and imagine this one given by me. You will like and accept it like bitcoin?

Interesting. What is the real value of this kind of certificate? In other words, what real thing can have someone who buy that? If is nothing, why buy it? And who are the stupids who buy? Must have serious problems.... Pay for 100 ounces and have only 1.

Or that gold certificates can give you gold in every moment if you want to change that?

It is good idea but I think that is not connected with the living online but with the living with online.    Then, I think that it will be not enough demand for bitcoin (in the meaning to create this kind of job you have in mind) even for more time. So I'm afraid that it will remain only an good idea. Not an good way to make revenue with the online. Anyhow your try. Maybe there can be some pioneers even in your city which can offer the possibility to do what you think to do only because the attraction they will find for bitcoin. Like us which are here in bitcointalk.

In which way can be controlled the demand? In which way can be increased? In which way can be keep high? Can you show some ways or methods how to realize that? I'm curious to learn about this.

So sometime the website lets you win. But the other sometime what happen? What "sometime" is bigger the first or the second? I bet that the second. Then what is the meaning to gamble? To have the pleasure to lose?

Sorry for that. But for sure that you will continue to gamble again until you will have again back these 1.7 bitcoins or not? It is for sure that one day in the future you will have those back?

Think a few mate. You lost about 450 us dollar today. If you lose in this way (even the half of this amount) every day what it will be with your future? Can you do the calculations of your lost for only one month? Can you realize what other beautiful things you can do with this big amount of money?

I have not take over the duty to make the story of prices for gold and bitcoin. Because if will do this I can tell that in 6 years of its life the price of bitcoin is increased in infinite% while the price of gold in the last 6 years has 4 years and half the decrease as tendency. The price of bitcoin was 0 and now is about 260 us dollar. This is the most right data about bitcoin These data are enough to show the value of bitcoin compared to the gold and are much more significant than yours 5 years, yours 30%, yours 85% yours 24 months, yours 6% per year, yours 45% per year, yours "declining steeply" and yours "stagnated as well" given in the post which you have quoted (and not the post to which I am answered). And are much more accurate than any other kinds of data you can find, calculate, invent or give.

Now needed to tell all the story.

If someone want to tell something can find any kind of data to do comparisons. The problem is to understand which data are important and give something that can help the interested person to understand something about which he has expressed wrong knowledge.

My first answer (given to an post about one row) wanted to give explanations which wanted to show only that the overall tendency for the price of gold is the decrease (lasted for more than 4 years), the price of bitcoin was stable (for the last ten months) and to tell to the author of the primary quoted post by me that his perception or knowledge about what he write in his post was not correct.

This my post was interpreted by another poster which have seen my answer as not correct; giving the price of bitcoin in time which is clearly in decrease. I tried to give this poster my point of view and the explanation of the why of my first answer.

Then come the third poster. He do the opposite of the second one but quoting my comments. Part of those. Which are "interesting" and "wrong" according to him. This third draws my attention (always doing the opposite of the second idea expressed by the second poster) giving "intellectual" and "deep data" and "thoughts".

So we have firstly this simple post: "Gold has stability value, bitcoin its more volatile. Bitcoin needs more stability if it wants to become as popular as gold."

My answer was aimed to give them only the data regarding its post. Not more and not less. So to give him the "news" that the gold has not stability value and that bitcoin was stable for about ten months. My answer was about two row and two charts. Giving the price of gold in four years and half in decrease and the price of bitcoin in the last ten months. That's all. After this come another chart and another comment. Then the third. Every post in opposite to the previous. So need to give explanations to everyone about the why of my two rows answer to the primary post.

So no one was interested for the first post but to ask my the why of my answer and to show me that I'm wrong.

If someone wanted to help someone, first needed to quote its post and not mine (which was an answer to the first poster which needed clarifications) and give other data like the amount of the trading, the period which show better the tendency of the price, the amounts of decrease or the increase of price in different periods, the chose of the best period which can give better the tendency of price, the factors which affect the price, the factors which affect the trading, the other factors which hasn't happen but can happen in the future, the probably future price of the bitcoin and the gold, the probability of verification of every future given price for each of the above subjects and other things that I don't know which are but know that will bother to much the interested.

While for everyone which quoted my post (or my posts) is not important this but another thing. They are not interested to clarify the first poster or to see to what post was aimed my answer. They wanted to show that them are more capable in doing calculations and giving "excellent" and "deep thoughts". So them don't give or even remove the first (primary) post, quote only my post (with my "poor" answer and, at least, incapable and not with "deep thoughts"), and make the "needed" corrections giving to me in the same time even the right lesson about the big error made from me in giving such wrong knowledges in my posts to the others.

As for me this kind of data (given by the posters who quoted my posts) and all the other conjunctural data as well even those used to tell necessarily something or to do opposite for every thing, serve only to they which have nothing to do and find way to oppose, to them which have the need to write something "special" in order to show this to the others or to the maniacs of data. I don't know in which category are the authors of my quoted posts but invite them to show all their capacity in creating "deep thoughts", in doing "right calculations", "predictions", "inventions", "comparisons", "comments", "interventions", "corrections", "lecturers" etc. etc. to write a book with all their pearls. Lets go in the market to see the number of theirs books sold. In this way will convince themselves that their's "deep" and always "right" "thoughts" have not even the value of the paper spent to do the book.

To tell the right I don't understand that sentence in bold. Mine was a statiscal data which show the price of gold and bitcoin in time. The real one registered. Distorted or not this is another thing. But was the real one, registered by London Bullion Market Association, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

See here for more: http://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart

Thanks for the comment.

You are saying that I am telling lies? Please read some of the posts in this thread.

Maybe you prefer "don't love", "are unsatisfied", "don't like", "don't prefer", "don't want", "fight", want to eliminate", "want to avoid", "want to not exist", "is a nightmare".

Are to many the other similar words that I don't remember and are to many to be used in a post. And all those, told with one only word, are "hate".

I think that Greece have very few (or at all) to do with the bitcoin in these days. The crisis for the moment is away, everything is going normally (at least from the latest news) and have no reason that the people go more at bitcoin than the times of crisis. But even because I believe that the users of bitcoin in Greece are very few. And they don't use to much it.

Anyhow, in these moments the price of bitcoin, according to preev.com is 283.3 us dollar. If i will be stable this time?

A centralized crptocurrency will have its name and not FIAT. We cannot call fiat the us dollar. It is fiat but its name is us dollar. The same with all the other currencies of all the countries of the world. They have their names and being fiat is another characteristic of those but not their name. We cannot call the Constitution Fiat because its name id Constitution. If we mus call everything given by a centralized center fiat we will have something like that in discussing something: Give me that fiat because I need to do a fiat which with the other fiat can create a fiat needed to use as fiat and for the fiat. 

Sure. It is better do everything with hands and without head. Like it was thousand years ago. Technology hurt everyone, give only unemployment. For example the invention of computer (to tell one) has leave without work millions developers, programmers and other auxiliary staff. The invention of railways made possible that millions and millions people were punished to go faster and not walking in their destination. The invention of internet made possible the punishment of millions and millions people with the connection much more fast with each other, have unlimited possibilities of knowledge and even create something wrong and dirty like bitcoin. The last one is a bigger punishment than internet itself. Being the first materialization of another big technology (as it is peer to peer technology) it is an invention to punish more the users of it. It is a product of a double invented technology (internet and peer to peer). Who knows how people will remain jobless with this new technology....    First of all was the "producers" of bitcoin. They had big losses from this invention. Who knows which will happen ongoing with these damned new technologies? 

Thanks for the comment.

No one asked about the fiat money (the fiat money actually in circulation) but for a digital coin like bitcoin (in everything) but which is centralized and not decentralized like bitcoin. You mentioned in your post that are few things that work better with centralized system. Is (can be) this digital coin one of things that can work not better but normally with the centralized system (being centralized)?

Thanks for the comment.

Sorry but I cannot well understand what you want to tell with your post. So I cannot give a sure comment (thoughts) about it.

Anyhow I'm trying to write something guessing your answer. If you think that "government can take the control of bitcoin" you are in big wrong. First who can be this government? There are more than 200 governments in all the world. Which one will (can) do this thing?

Leaving apart this I think that no one will be able to take the control of it. For several reasons. First of all because it is produced by all the world and no one can control the people who produce it. Then it will be hard to chose the government which will do this thing. Third this government must buy enormous amounts of bitcoin to be able to own really it and to use it as it want. Can be even other reasons that I can't know or that for the moment I don't remember.