Me! Me!

Agreed. The uncertainty is killing me.

Report? Where? How much?

Normally I would try to keep this thread on topic, but I have a big grudge against how drunk driving is handled.

Is it OK to drive drunk? No, people should be educated and shown why it's wrong.
However, the laws in places (claiming to protect citizens from drunk driving) are doing just the opposite.
This is where all the hypocrisy of the situation arises.

Being drunk slows down your reaction time. If you have to drive home, you should drive slower, say 20 km/h, for example.
But because there's bad laws in place, you have an incentive to drive faster,
otherwise the cops will see you driving at 20 km/h and say "Hum, that's odd... he's probably drunk, let's arrest him."

So while the laws in place are claiming to protect the citizens, they are adding incentives for dangerous speedy drunk driving.
If you want to use the government to reduce drunk driving accidents, you should offer free lifts to whomever might need it,
in addition to bringing their car home.

This week's Ed and Ethan's Bitcoin cast is related.

Enjoy! 

"this sentence has fifteen words, seventy-four letters, four commas, one hyphen, and a period."

What black magic is this?!?!

I think the Bitcoin ATM is a great way to achieve this goal. Any ideas on the price and availability?

If all else fails, there's still taxes on land and buildings.

Eh, kids these days have it easy. They don't even commit real crimes and they go to prison.
In my time someone had to be really bad for that!

*Shakes fist angrily*

HTTPS?

Yay! First time I can really support them. 

Here's the link to the forum's thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177631.0

Wow, that was absolutely brilliant!

I'm interested in this as well.
Anyone knows the price and availability?

That's like saying "do you think wordpress and others will switch to another scammer when they will be screwed by their credit cards processor?"

I understand that you think bitcoins are overpriced and all (with pretty good arguments), but this one is just dishonest.

That's why there's also BIPS.

I don't see how that's relevant.
Even less than political views in fact.
Especially since it's unrelated.

See, this is what is hypocritical in this approach.

You have a tool that was explicitly created to give power to individuals.
If you were to weed out people based on their political views, it should be those who don't adhere to this view.
This would be a bad idea, because discarding people because of their political views is just intellectually dishonest.

We had the Cyprus story. Did anyone here said "Oh c'mon guys, what they did in Cyprus was chosen by their government;
we should not encourage them to use Bitcoin to save some of their saving." ?

Is there anyone here saying that we shouldn't emphasize how Bitcoin can help those in Argentina with their 30% inflation?
*crickets*

Their was some arguments recently that Bitcoin could be used in China because of their capital control.
Again, did someone raised up and said that it was bad for the image of Bitcoin?

No, of course not. You don't want to openly say that Bitcoin can be used to circumvent bad laws only when it's in your country.

Of course, I would not defend these gentlemen if they weren't great speakers, but they are!

Anyone knows how much these ATMs cost?

Roger Ver has been spreading the ideas of Bitcoin for years with his advertisements on Free Talk Live,
his bold $10 000 bet, his investments in many Bitcoin related projects
(such as blockchain.info and Bitcoinstore.com) and his many public appearances.

Remember this?

Yup, that was also him. (Man, was I excited in 2011 when I saw this!)





Jon Matonis published countless article about Bitcoins (many on Forbes) and has a
professional background in the banking system, making him an excellent liaison
with this otherwise strange world. He also made multiple public appearances.


Both of these individuals are amazingly well spoken and have brilliantly spread
the Bitcoin word for years. And yet, now that Bitcoin is getting more media exposure, they have
been rejected from bitcoin.org as potential interviewees. Apparently, their views are too
"extreme" to be shown on TV, or they have done some things in the past that could be
used against Bitcoin image, even if completely unrelated. (Yeah right, Silkroad and the anonymity aren't enough...)

I think this is a load of crap.
You have potentially the most important invention in the history of mankind, but you try to gift-wrap
it in a nice little politically-correct package. What are you afraid of? If Bitcoin is an efficient system,
it will be adopted regardless of the opinions of some of the speakers.

As this move seemed to have gone mostly unnoticed, I wanted to bring some light to it.

So, any of you appreciates what those two individuals have done for Bitcoin?
Do you think they should be pushed aside to protect Bitcoin's image?
If, like me, you think they are great representatives for Bitcoin, please speak!