mention 0.4 for newly encrypted wallets.  Gavin also mentioned something about backups in client.  see last BW interview.
ExchB for depositing cash at BofA and WFC for BTC's.
mtgox mobile smartphone app
Ruxum-Wall St professionals involved in setup
Textcoin.uk.co-obtain BTC via SMS texting
BTC ATM-Todd Bethells project
Memory Dealers and Roger Vers $10000 bet.  Also his new nationwide radio ad campaign which he personally funds.
Bitcoin is almost 3 years old and no disruptions (double spends or reversed tx's)!!!
Mtgox's much improved security (yubikeys, https, anti DOS, SSL, etc)
Casascius phy btc's as mentioned by Steve

please consider mentioning how Bitcoin has successfully fought off at least 4 alt chains!

@Jordan

everyone here sees your point even if they might not agree.  thanks for putting up a good thread and welcome to the community.

i clearly trust mtgox more.  i've moved way more money thru them than you i assure you and never had a problem.  the hack has made him stronger and what i see now in terms of security is much better than before.  he also has history; of being a strong supporter of the bit coin concept from the beginning as well as being charitable in helping out others in the community.

first of all, i would like to thank Weex for providing another method for trading Bitcoins.  this is certainly along the lines of what we need.

however, his lack of response to my question about whether or not ExchB has notified BofA or WFC about the nature of its business in trading Bitcoins leads me to assume that they have not done so.

my fear is that this turns out to be another black eye for Bitcoin if and when these same banks potentially eliminate their business model.

i'm open to being corrected.

thats the exact documentation they asked of me when i wanted to withdrawal more than the daily $1000 limit.  that was 2 mo ago though.

don't forget; Bitcoin is a new concept and is in a highly evolving state.  anything to keep the doors open at Mtgox is worth it for now.  not ideal, but necessary i'm afraid.

personally i wouldn't make a big deal about it.  if you're making a profit doing this i would stick with it even if it means revealing your identity.  not too many Bitcoin businesses are making a profit at this moment.  and if it gets big, like i'm betting, if you're one of the last guys standing still in business your upside will be enormous.

it appears you as a technical person potentially sees more than i as an investor.  but i have some serious concerns about your claims.

first of all, Gavin wasn't dancing around anything in that single post of his regarding Namecoin.  everything he said in that post was in regards to Namecoin, not Bitcoin.   am i wrong?  the reason Namecoin is susceptible to a rewrite of its block chain is b/c its so new; w/o the hashing power of a Bitcoin to protect it.  in fact, if anything, he was perhaps intimating the strength of Bitcoin as it currently has several large hashing power players that have the strength to squash any competition just because they can.  this is the advantage of being first to market.  its a competitive world; the fact that BitcoinExpress backed off his threat for now is a Godsend to Namecoin.  i'm assuming he is a Bitcoin supporter and he has every reason, justifiably in my opinion, to eliminate competitors if he so chooses.  i'm sure he has an economic interest in doing so.  this is life.  just like i fully expect the US gov't to try and squash Bitcoin.  this is the risk i take by investing in Bitcoin and knowing i might lose that investment to a gnarly attack. 

one of the things i use to monitor whether strange things are happening to the block chain is this:

http://blockexplorer.com/q/reorglog

this is theymos's reorg log.  as you can see a block gets changed every 5 days or so and this hasn't changed since July when he started monitoring this.  very stable i must say and very encouraging.  no one is losing coins haphazardly in Bitcoin.  its almost 3 yrs now since it was developed and thats a long time by my estimation.  i personally am very confident in how its working so far.

you obviously think  you're seeing something specific to Bitcoin.  i would love to hear something more concrete.

clearly you don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is.  your post has so many misconceptions that i'm not going to address them directly but indirectly.  i prefer to contrast Bitcoin with a ponzi scheme as defined by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

firstly, there is no fraud involved in the technology itself which is composed of the computer network and block chain via generation of bit coins and tx verification.  all the security issues we've witnessed are secondary phenomena from businesses surrounding the trading of Bitcoin itself.  secondly, its not a company or organization that generates revenue to be distributed to shareholders.  Bitcoin acts like money or currency, or a store of value.  the USD or gold do not generate revenues either but they do go up and down in value relative to other currencies.  you  wouldn't call these 2 forms of money ponzi's would you?  thirdly, Bitcoin doesn't necessarily require an ever increasing flow of money to become more valuable.  we could keep the same number of people invested in Bitcoin as there is today but if these same people begin to perceive more value in a Bitcoin, they will pay more for them driving the price up.  fourthly, Bitcoin is not destined to collapse IMO.  its been out for almost 3 yrs now and the network or block chain itself has not been disturbed.  many hackers have tried but failed.  no one's been cheated via a double spend and no past tx's have been altered.  fifthly, no one is selling securities here; these are Bitcoins, unique to themselves and more a form of money than anything.  sixth, i don't see any authorities claiming they are illegal either.  

as far as the early adopters; they did not solicit OPM to get their computers mining btc's.  they invested their own fiat USD's to "earn" those bit coins by dedicating computational power and time along with electrical costs to generating Bitcoins, securing the network, and verifying tx's.  at the beginning in 2009 it was far from clear Bitcoin would go to 31.  in fact, the famous 10000 btc's for a pizza is indicative of this.  no malice of intent as in a ponzi was ever present in these early adopters as that guy would never have given up that many bit coin for a mere pizza if he knew the price would subsequently ramp.  as the idea caught on of course the price ramped as many see a valid promising concept.  and of course, some of the early adopters (not all) sold as they became more valuable.  that is not a ponzi.  there was risk involved. would you call those early buyers of Apple stock who are selling today at $400/sh ponzi schemers?  i think not.  also, the Bitcoin network or block chain shows no signs of vanishing from fear of being "found out".  its a mathematical concept that just keeps grinding along no matter what the USD price.  this will persist even if the price down to $.01.  no returns were promised and no one is going to run off with the btc's in the blockchain.  they will always be there freely available to anyone who wishes to buy them.

there is no "schemer" that acts as a hub for its victims.  there is no schemer acting to prevent or minimize withdrawals from the system.   there is no schemer "promising" higher returns.  there is no schemer acting to deceive.  you might point to BW but he is not involved in the mathematics or source code behind Bitcoin in any way, just the "business" surrounding Bitcoin.

the drop in price could simply be from a worsening of the general economy.  no one knows for sure.  the fundamentals, though, have not changed one iota and the network will persist.  its possible for a competing technology  will come along and replace Bitcoin or that a fatal flaw may be exploited in the future but it sure doesn't look that way to me.  but these potential weaknesses in no way indicate a ponzi scheme.

if you choose not to respond to cypherdoc it would be more from you not willing to be intellectually challenged.

whether you realize it or not, people are regaining significant confidence in mtgox's ability to safeguard USD's and BTC.  this is important.

just brainstorming here:  perhaps Casascius's physical btc concept shouldn't be so easily dismissed as a novelty.  thinking of my own customers many of whom do not have smartphones, handling phys-btc would be much more user friendly.  

the merchant problem i see is not accepting btc's, since its a no brainer b/c of the low fees and fairly easy setup use, but is getting btc's into the hands of its customers.

what about getting your merchants to invest in a moderate supply of phys-btc's and getting repeat customers to "trade" them for their USD's so that in the future they can return to make payments with their phys-btc's?  certainly the exchange value could be problematic but i think we're close to the bottom in the btc price and the volatility should decrease from here and perhaps will even go up.  the main point is to get btc's into the hands of consumers.  once they have phys-btc's they may then make the transition to digital btc's which is what we want.

Tony,

i think the 2 biggest issues facing Bitcoin are scalability and security.  the latter will be greatly improved with the pending 0.4 but the former is what is holding back large investors.  it seems to me Steve knows the coding as well as anyone and you guys need to make this  priority number one.  from the wiki it seems this shouldn't be too difficult but until general consensus agrees, it will be difficult to get widespread adoption of Bitcoin as an offline payment method.  resolution of this will be critical for BitPays success.

as long as the block chain stays secure, Bitcoin could simply act as a store of wealth, much like gold.  in that sense, does it really need an economy built around it?

clearly it would be better if it did as it would stimulate more awareness and demand for the coins.  Bit-pay is a great way to do this.

Steve and Tony; have you tried to take this to Kenya?  if Bitcoin and Bit-Pay could take away market share from M Pesa it would be great.

someone who believes in Bitcoin unlike yourself.  and my apologies if you are who you say you are and truly believe in what you say.

my problem with someone like you who spends enough time on this forum to be considered a Senior Member is that your negativity is way out of proportion to your participation here.  why would you put up so many posts on this site if it was indeed a ponzi scheme?  saying that you're here to warn people doesn't cut it for me.  clearly you've contributed greatly to the negativity surrounding Bitcoin and have i'm sure scared off plenty of investors. are you destructive by nature?

i looked at your site and the first thing that strikes me is that your short blurb on Bitcoin is basically a couple of short paragraphs based on a price chart and an opinion.  there are plenty of price charts that have done that and exploded back to the upside.  and there are plenty of Cassandra's such as yourself that have called "ponzi" to various schemes throughout history that have gone bankrupt doing so.  you've spent more time, effort, and words posting here than on your own website.  one post a year for the last 3 yrs?  that makes no proportional sense and makes me reasonably think you have an agenda and yeah, that usually means being paid.  "Deathwatch", "Misery Row" across the top of your page? and i love this:



i'll bet you totally missed the Nasdaq run up of the 1990's and started calling for a top around 1996.

you're clearly an extremely negative person as your website suggests.  claiming to have called the tops of many bubbles is highly questionable  and certainly doesn't mean you've profited from it along the way.  as they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.  i'll bet you've called many other investments "ponzi's" and been deadly wrong as well.  as a long time active investor in many markets i have learned to expect the unexpected.

its too early to make any definitive statements on Bitcoin as you have.  perhaps its too early for me to be as positive as i have.  we've only been at this for a few months.  internet speed in this new digital age for the last 12 yrs for the masses easily could have been the sole cause of the ramp to 31 and subsequent fall.  this ramp and fall has nothing to do with the underlying technology and merits of Bitcoin.  in fact, i think the ramp to 31 so quickly indicates an incredibly bright future ahead as people were quick to see the underlying prospects of Bitcoin as a digital analogy to gold. does gold have an economy built around it?  no.  

i've studied the technology in depth and talked to the devs and i think Bitcoin has a bright future.  i personally think it has all the attributes of gold and doesn't even need an economy surrounding it to succeed but i could be wrong. but its possible that it best function could be as a store of wealth. we'll just have to see.  it has all the properties that can solve the many problems we're seeing in the financial industry today and gives us a financial tool we've never experienced yet in history.  clearly no one knows the future but i remain positive.

which is why i spend much of my time and effort here contributing to something i believe in.  so why aren't you?  and if its negativity and ponzi's you believe in, why isn't your website more developed?

edit:  you've called Bitcoin a Ponzi.  clearly either you don't understand the definition of a Ponzi or you don't understand Bitcoin.

you know, you should just STFU.  we all know you're a paid shill basher of bitcoin.   otherwise, you wouldn't be spending so much time here and you would've taken my bet of 100 BTC to you.  when bitcoin skyrockedts again, you're gonna lose your job.

Blitz:

i'll start off by saying its a feel or an intuition based on all the fundamental analysis of Bitcoin technology compared to gold as well as experience in my years of trading.  i'll be the first to admit i may be wrong but i'm willing to take the risk.

its funny, but when i first started buying gold and silver in 2005 i didn't have anywhere near the excitement i have with Bitcoin.  i had read most of the fundamental analyses back at that time and was nervous where gold would head. there were no good alternatives at the time and i could see the trouble ahead in the housing/stock mkt and wanted a hedge.  indeed it served its purposes quite well for me up until Bitcoin came along.

the fundamentals of gold apply quite nicely to Bitcoin IMO and even more so with our current digital age.  i was a relic of the Nasdaq runup and subsequent crash.  everyone thought the internet and its companies were toast.  but look at whats its done in the last 11 yrs.  Absolutely amazing growth.  i'm a big fan of tech and think that computers have interwoven themselves into our society to a large and irreversible degree which will only grow.  i'm not going to miss this Bitcoin bull which will integrate perfectly with this growth as well as address all the criminality in the financial world.

i had the good fortune of speaking directly with some of the devs very early on allowing me to understand the math behind the blockchain.  i'm a believer.  its a concept thats been begging to be invented.  Bitcoin has been around for almost 3yrs now and is solid.  it keeps getting better and look how its squashed the alt chains. watch yesterdays BW interview with Gaving and Stefan.  we're fine and getting stronger IMO.  there ARE several big players slowly and surreptitiously coming into the space.  its only a matter of time.

Stefan said something that struck me in the interview.  he said we all understand it better now even compared to a couple of months ago.  i can say i do as well.  and i'm even more bullish now than i was when i bought in.

Nagle is just a small, little, gov't or bank paid shill.  he's just a flea on the back of a huge bull.

LOL!  The $DXY came within a penny of my 76.20 target.  i guess the Fed has decided to make this a valid breakout.  oh my, there's going to be hell to pay.

+1  this is why i don't think bankers let HT happen.

meaning what exactly?  gov'ts gaining more ability to crack cryptography?