I don't think this is so much misinformation, but rather a way to get people to visit their satire site (in order to get more ad revenue).

I would consider publications like CNN and MSNBC to be better examples of media outlets that are actually spreading misinformation as they present things as fact they know are not true. While this website has it's articles be written outrageously enough so that anyone who reads though ~the first half of the article would be able to reasonably know that the overall message is not true.

I agree. He appears to be pushing his escrow services too aggressively. While he may or may not be trying to scam via his escrow service, I think he is trying to build up trust to potentially pull off some kind of long con. This is especially relevant for signature campaigns that he is trying to escrow for, as it may result in him receiving trust from people on default trust. I personally would prefer an escrow from someone that is recommended by others rather then someone who recommends themselves.   

I very much agree that this campaign needs to use a legit escrow service (or offer up front payments) for participants if there is any chance they will be paid.

I don't think bitcoin can help people in countries that have this low of a standard of living. When a country has people living on less then $10 (equivalent) per day, the economy is not going to lose very much from inefficiencies in payment processing (neither in cost nor time), nor will they have a large concern about counterfeiting as it would be too obvious when people are spending too much money when compared to others and what they are making. These are all things that bitcoin solves

The thing is that in order to steal a car, you need to be physically present while you do not even to be connected to the internet to crack a brain wallet (you only need a 'somewhat' up to date version of the blockchain.

The level of entropy that a brain wallet will use is not enough to keep it secure over the long term. This is especially true as ASICs are being made for scrypt based altcoins, which means that it will eventually be more profitable to re-purpose GPUs to attempt to mine brain wallets (which means more effort will be put into finding a brain wallet). I think that brain wallets may be secure for short term storage under certain circumstances (for example if you are crossing the border and/or going to be going to jail for a short time).

I also think the fact that no one has stolen your 1 BTC means that no one has found the private key. It is a known fact that some people "test" their brain wallet with small amounts of bitcoin to see if the money is quickly stolen and if so don't put what they "really" intended to put in it, and as a result people who are farming brain wallets will not always take the balance from a brain wallet just because there is a balance in it

I would say that this would cause people to give up a lot of privacy and has the potential to be abused by the government.

It is basically talking about colored coins, or the transfer of assets/shares via the blockchain. I personally do not believe in this kind of hype, and would argue that colored coins are nothing more then altcoins.

I would also say that calling this "Bitcoin 2.0" is misleading

It probably will not pass this year as it is a far from urgent bill in a lame duck congress. It looks like it is currently in committee now and will probably pass at least the house eventually in some form as it reduces regulations which the GOP (who controls the house) is in favor of.

One thing the bill is missing is a reversal of the IRS's ruling to treat bitcoin as property instead of currency as this makes keeping track of the value of your bitcoin when you buy and sell it very burdensome whenever a consumer tries to use/spend it

TBF does not actually speak for "Bitcoin" nor are they any kind of an official bitcoin foundation (despite their misleading name.

It is an invalid argument to say that Bitcoin is centralized because of TBF

With physical deliveries, it is much easier to prove that an actual product was delivered to a specific address, so it is easier to fight a chargeback dispute.

Additionally when delivering a physical good it is easy to know where the product went in the event that the merchant would decide to go after the buyer, verses a basically anonymous buyer with bitcoin

I would say that he is probably waiting for trading volume and consumer/merchant adoption to more mainstream levels. This will consequentially probably will mean a much higher price.

He is probably also waiting for much of the bitcoin community to "follow" him much less, and look to what he has said less.

I would say this is probably correct. The lack of him knowing their identity (and the high chances that they use tor to connect to the forum) probably makes him less willing to allow them to advertise, as if they scam he could potentially be blamed and/or said that he is behind the scam.

This is a centralized forum. It is not realistic to have a decentralized forum. The closest thing to a decentralized forum is reddit and it is very easy to manipulate upvotting/downvoting

The casinos at least try to prevent people residing in places where gambling is illegal from gambling. It is not illegal to advertise a casino in places where gambling is illegal as long as the casino does not allow them to gamble

Assuming that a bidder met the qualifications (submitted AML/KYC documents ahead of time, provided the appropriate deposit, ect), bidders were selected on price.

He has said publicly that he plans on hodling the bitcoin over the long term.

The price is not going to be disclosed by the USMS, nor will the identities of the winners (most likely). In theory the winners could publicly disclose their prices and amounts they won, however doing do may put them at a competitive disadvantage.

SMS tends to be more expensive when sending internationally (and generally free domestically). I would argue that SMS payments would be better for sending money domestically.

If bitcoin is going to be a mainstream way to send money internationally then the "internet" is almost certainly going to be used to provide bitcoin addresses to send money to by the receiver.

Confirmed, you will be presently surprised.

Per Skype conversation I am applying:

Rank: Senior Member

Post Count (including this one):645
Address (either from bit-x.com or your own): 1HWTTXUgwa8JvhSNMhKfwGT6ecLFHP8eTC

I have changed my signature and will advertise for the entire month

Doesn't look like you accepted me

Removing signature so I can make quality posts advertising for bitmixer

I would like to join!

Post Count (including this one): 643
Address (either from bit-x.com or your own): 1HWTTXUgwa8JvhSNMhKfwGT6ecLFHP8eTC
Rank: Senior member w/negative trust (so marketplace posts will not count).

I look forward to working with you and plan on making very constructive posts throughout the month.

I don't think this would be appropriate (unless it is an extreme case like spamming multiple user's reputation). IMO being able to buy a higher weighed trust is a bad idea as the damage of any potential abuse would be done prior to it likely being detected.

I do however like the idea of a lower donation threshold that would grant users some additional features that are not available to non-donating members

It is not difficult to survive for "one" day as it would be very easy to not have to buy anything for one day (you can easily go a day without eating, and can stay awake for 24 hours if you have to).

I would say a much better experiment would be the one that forbes did

Why would he want to buy cloud mining if he does not pay for electricity? This would be illogical because you will pay for electricity one way or another if you buy cloud mining