Bitcoin popularisation can discredit gold even without any direct gold trades involving bitcoin-holders:

* We know Bitcoin is a scam.
* It can be shown that Bitcoin is like gold.

Therefore we conclude that Gold is a scam.

Shorting is not much of a hedge because you usually have a cheaper option of simply reducing the size of your bitcoin position.

Binary options, on the other hand, allow you to get a non-linear return of investment, which is not obtainable with normal bitcoin trading.

07:05

And again the question of "Who polices the bitcoin?" gets asked and not answered properly.

I'd like to have the bitcoins sooner rather than later so I am trying to avoid slow payment methods like international wire transfers.

WTB 50 BTC with UK bank transfer 5% above MtGox price.

Anyone?

Same here. I have 4 of them available.

I thought it was a well known fact that the "last price" indicator on their home page reports silly numbers. The solution for you: don't use the "last price" indicator!

I don't think that's what it's saying. It just says "check validity time: 1 year". I guess that refers to the time before the check expires. If it's less than 1 year, btc-e won't accept such a check. I'm a native Russian speaker, but I don't know how the paymer.ru system works.

What's your data again? Your link shows this IP address was active since October, transmitting coinbase transactions rather often. As for the transmitted blocks, I can only see these several ones: http://blockchain.info/blocks/93.174.55.27.

Oh, OK, I see the rate of coinbase transaction from there somewhat improved. However, I only see 57 on the first two pages, from 10 Dec till today. Not too insane (you said it was 80 in 3 days). It could be a pool machine though.

Also, the latest bitcoin block rate jumps are well within the expected variability. Nothing out of the ordinary yet.

Yes, which is why I've brought up this facts, which invalidates the Roger's evidence:

There seems to be no contradiction between Roger's and Nethead's statements. Roger says their customer sent bitcoins to the Nethead's address. Nethead says that his address was was the anonymiser address for one-time use only, which makes the additional funds sent inaccessible. There is no refutation of that as far as I can tell.

Was it ever established that nethead was lying?

Let me remind you:


That bolded part seems to invalidate the only 'proof' of his fault we ever had.

I volunteer.

Another scenario: consider the people who consciously destroyed their bitcoins as a charity act: to make a gift to the other bitcoin users. Do you think they will be happy to know that their gift will go to waste (burned by the miners) instead of rewarding the bitcoin holders with the increased value of their coins?

I know these people are not too important, but this whole thread is anyway.

The only guess is that the coin loss rate somewhat grows with the money supply growing. I think that's a safe guess. You're not going to claim otherwise, are you?? Never mind that, it's wrong.

Right. Which is the reason why neither yours nor mine solution are going to be a part of Bitcoin.

No. As the currency supply increases, the effective inflation rate decreases (because it's equal to M/S where M is the constant minting rate and S is the growing currency supply). The deflation rate will likely stay constant because people having more are going to lose more. This way the equilibrium will be achieved, when the deflation rate equals the inflation rate and they cancel each other out.

... which puts a huge burden onto the offline, or worse, m-of-n wallet keepers.

There is none. I'm not against the slow inflow of coins through mining at all. Here, I've even told you how to achieve your goals without resorting to silly measures:
Yes, just make the minimum block reward equal to 1 BTC and the problem of infinite deflation is solved. My solution is superior to yours in these ways:
* It is much simpler, which means: easier to explain, easier to implement.
* It doesn't require long-term storage to be "refreshed", meaning less things to worry about.
* It creates a stable supply instead of allowing random market shocks. Imagine a million coins lost in 2009 hitting some lucky miner in 2109.
* It can not be subverted by a bot making 1-satoshi payments to all the addresses that are about to expire.

What grudge do you hold against inactive coin-holders?? You can achieve the same simply by putting a lower bound on the block reward. No need to use silly methods. Still not going to happen any time soon.

My mind has been raped. There is an error in almost every sentence. It's like the author doesn't understand anything at all. And I don't mean bitcoin-related. Everything is bullshit.

This is awesome though

My bitcoins arrived (delivery to UK took 12 days) and they are beautiful! Unfortunately, I'm already out and need moar!!