I think that aspect is absolutely critical.  It's why I don't care to get into facebook credits, ven, or whatever wallet system/currency google starts peddling.

Even companies as massive as google and facebook will have trouble getting a really broad base of support across all countries - as just because you use them for one service, doesn't mean you want to use their 'banking' services.
Bitcoin stands a much better chance of growing a large and genuinely diverse base.

What is to stop the accumulation of encoins becoming so great that it vastly outweighs the size of the encoin economy?
(much as is now the case with bitcoin)

If a large number of  encoiners believe the value of an encoin is roughly that of 10kWh and that encoin is the way of the future - then presumably these things will be generated widely, not just for immediate use, but as a way to save.  (especially if there are various impediments to direct purchase - as is currently also the case with bitcoin, and I suspect why many mine rather than buy)

Corporations with good electricity discounts, and consumers in countries with lower rates might build up significant stores with the expectation that they'll effectively get a slight premium in the end due to their production cost being lower than the average.

Don't we then have the situation where a few large holders who need to sell for some reason, could effectively spook the market and also cause a crash in value to well below the cost of production?

I don't see that situation as necessarily a death knell for either encoin or bitcoin - but I'm just not yet seeing how encoin is guaranteed some price equilibrium approximately near the cost of production.  Does the design of encoin allow a determination of how many coins are 'out there'?

Even if a rough 10KWhr price correlation were achieved - the price differential in electricity around the world is huge. For a vast number of people, the value of encoins would primarily be a function of what some other small group of nations paid per KWhr.  Perhaps for example encoins will predominantly be produced in the Ukraine with it's cheap Nuclear power.   

A brief article in the Financial Chronicle's 'mydigitalfc' in Hyderabad India.

So this appears to be an argument that Bitcoins will make taxation impossible.
Is that right, or do you envisage some system where tax revenue is still extracted but somehow bitcoin gives more of a say in how it is spent?

If it's an argument that the entire taxation system will become unworkable - I'm not clear on how this is really an advantage for bitcoin.
While 'no tax' might play well in some subset of the US - I'm pretty sure most people around the world see it as a necessary evil.

A tax system that is able to be hamstrung in order to stop wars, is also able to be crippled simply through individual greed.

It rather seems that the 'bring an end to war' argument is simply a thinly veiled 'destroy the guvmint' argument and I don't think this is a point in favour for bitcoin mass adoption.

I suspect it's the same reason the New York conference didn't get much media attention: Journalists don't want to feel they've been 'used' to pimp someone's investment or simply provide publicity for some interest group.
I'm not sneezing at 10K - but from a marketing perspective it would be cheap if it did get mainstream media attention.


I hope you release the password either way.. even if in the end something you said in there is way off the mark, you don't look the type to get embarrassed too easily

While I love the billboard, and even the sentiment behind the bet - I think the 100x bet could be slightly damaging.
In my opinion it's likely to scare some investors off and reinforce the impression that there is a lot of snake-oil and hype around anything bitcoin.

That has to be balanced against the publicity gained from such a bold claim. 

I guess that even if Bitcoins were to outperform by 'only' 2X or 3X -  then history will look fairly kindly on Roger even though he was a little overzealous; but if  it's much less, it's going to make the climb even harder from that point onwards.

For now - I guess I guess I peg the whole thing as 50% batshit crazy and 50% visionary ballsiness! 
(maybe that's the impression he was going for anyway )

I think he/she is just unfamiliar with Bitcoin, and is guilty of transcribing arguments from other scenarios.

To bemoan the deflationary nature of Bitcoin due to 'killing investment' is an inappropriate piece of transcription.
A traditional argument against a deflationary currency is that investment will be hindered due to reluctance to spend money which will be worth more in future.

For the argument that investment may stall to make any sense, Bitcoin would have to be so widespread that most of an economy's capital was tied up in it so that little other investment capital was available. (or so insanely deflationary that no investment other than bitcoin was attractive)
If the majority of the capital is still in other currencies, then from an investment perspective Bitcoin can also be considered just another asset like gold or property.

In the case where bitcoin is the dominant currency; the extent to which bitcoin is deflating would indeed act to subtract from the rate of return on investments.
I submit that Bitcoin's deflation rate will rise if the economy is vibrant (requiring more bitcoin transactions) - thus putting the brakes on borrowing and investment, but the Bitcoin deflation rate will lower if the economy slows  - making investments more attractive.

This is of course an experiment that hasn't been run with a highly divisible currency with a fixed issuance rate - but it doesn't seem helpful to have someone simultaneously arguing bitcoin will be 'dead in 3 months' whilst criticizing it for some flaw that they perceive in an alternate universe where Bitcoin has taken over the world.

And your point is..  ?? 
What *precisely* is your argument about why this is a bad thing?   

The *weak anonymity* of bitcoin is an optional attribute - it may or may not be present in a particular bitcoin exchange mechanism.  
For many bitcoiners it's *not a useful feature for day to day trade*...   So what!?

It is however very good to have the ability to donate to/support causes which one might not want to publicly associate with.

Another situation where the pseudonymity is appreciated is in transfer of value between individuals who know each other.
The 'anonymity' here is not between the participating parties - but simply in that there is no intermediate party to have any record linking their identities to the addresses in the transaction.

The obvious case where anonymity is preferred by the participants is of course the black market for illicit goods/services.
Whether something is 'black market' or not will vary depending on the jurisdictions involved - so one party may be breaking laws whilst the other is not.
That the parties in such a transaction don't enjoy legal recourse against each other is hardly of concern.

That bitcoin is something of an enabler for such transactions in the first place is a legitimate concern, but it's ameliorated somewhat by the fact that Bitcoin's actual level of traceability lies somewhere between that of cash and credit cards.
If the crime is so heinous that a State would throw enough resources to follow the blockchain and subpoena for the right server records - then it's effectively trackable.

That's asset prices in bitcoin
'killing investment'?   Is bitcoin to die in 3 months or are you predicting the complete replacement of all other currencies by bitcoin?

Are you really using the hypothetical situation of bitcoin being the only currency in order to argue against it?

hmm.. let's try that..

The cost is a 'sneaky' 10  (This costs 10 'sneakys' ?)
You have a 'shadowy' 3.1
Pay an 'encrypted' 42 now.
You have earned a 'stupendous' 0.004
Here is your bonus 'nuggety'  10.10
Your 'treasurable' balance is 0.12

meh. I'm not feeling it.

WTT?  Go start up your little UnitedStatesCoin.  The US-centrism around here gets pretty tiresome sometimes.
Although it'd be a hiccup - the rest of the planet will use bitcoin even if the US bans it.

Pfft.. any dwarven axe knows better!

I think that bitcoin losses in the short term are no big deal for the system as a whole. 
It would be 'nice' to have an idea of how many coins are in circulation, but if it gets to the point where there appear to be few left and it's a concern that large stashes thought lost, could suddenly reappear and devalue the currency; then perhaps that would be the time to migrate to a new chain.
I'm guessing that would be centuries away, unless there is some IT apocalypse which destroys a large percentage of wallets.

How unfortunate that the bitcards from 'global standard bank' show up prominently as an ebay 'suggestion' on your link.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/50-Bitcoin-BitCard-Digital-Currency-/120780930821?_trksid=p4340.m263#ht_500wt_1413

These guys: http://globalstandardbank.com/  look mighty suspicious to me.

These so-called bitcards can supposedly be 'converted back into digital form', but I suspect that the private key is not actually in the card and it relies on their database and website to convert.  That's if it's not an outright scam.  I haven't seen a presence from 'global standard bank' in the forums.

(edit: also - the 'activate' & 'authenticate' links on their website don't seem to work)

Good luck with the ebaying Casascius...  I hope people can recognise the value of legitimate BTC product such as your coins and bitbills compared to questionable things like the bitcards above.

From the bitcoin show episode 47


The honour!?  A revealing slip at the ego on this guy or just an innocent miswording?
ok.. so it's a cheap shot  - but I found this funny.

From the bitcoin show episode 47


Well that's convenient for him :/



I wish Bruce and Yifu would shut up sometimes,
but the show overall wasn't so bad.. Stefan Thomas and Gavin Andresen are interesting guests.

This is a pretty comprehensive intro! 

I think the 'Bitcoin Advantages' section is interesting only to a fairly niche group.
If when first looking into Bitcoin I'd  read that bit, I'd have thought 'oh yeah.. spose that's good in a way.. not highly relevant to me though'

Saying 'regular currencies can be devalued', given the current fluctuations in bitcoin price, just seems ridiculous to list as an advantage.  It's a theoretical advantage only at this stage (at least until Bitcoin has stable exchange rates and is actually deflationary).

In contrast - the list of '14 things you can do with bitcoin that you otherwise couldn't'  strikes me as having much more general appeal.
http://bitcoin-trader.blogspot.com/2011/09/14-things-you-can-do-with-bitcoin-that.html

It seems rather silly of them to link their new currency with the Church of Scientology that way - whether or not they are in fact Scientologists.

While theoretically it shouldn't matter who initiated things so long as the code is open source and scrutinized by many - I think 'an anonymous Japanese/English cryptographer 'is a heck of a lot of a better start from a PR perspective than 'Scientologist Investors'

Even the name 'StealthCoin' seems to make little business sense.   
Bitcoin is already burdened by some perceptions that it's too risky, shadowy and not for 'legitimate' business - why would someone genuinely wanting an investment return push further in that direction?