Oh no.
I would have expected your response to be one of apathy.  |
|
|
|
If you want to decrease their influence on the currency, get legitimate businesses to accept Bitcoin now.
+1 Come what may, this is a panacea for Bitcoin. (However, I think it's pretty obvious that rumours of Bitcoin's illegalization would cause its value to crash and - if the rumours turned out to be true - perhaps never recover.) I agree but its hard to get legitimate businesses to accept bitcoins if when they check it out they see people selling illegal goods a services. All I'm saying is this is the forum where everyone comes to find out where bitcoins are accepted so if the moderators would simply delete posts where people are offering illegal goods, those services would be much harder to find, the moderators of this forum would be less likely to get in trouble, and the network as a whole would be more likely to thrive in the long run. Furthermore, I think the critique on this page ought to be heeded. Even the druggies have reason to question our legitimacy.  We have an uphill battle. I'm personally in favour of keeping the official forum on a tighter leash, but I'm not sure which is the primary thread on which this matter has been debated. Decentralized as we are, I think we still really need our moderators to take charge and make some definitive pronouncements on matters like this. Perhaps we even need an election for a moderation chairman. |
|
|
|
If you want to decrease their influence on the currency, get legitimate businesses to accept Bitcoin now.
+1 Come what may, this is a panacea for Bitcoin. (However, I think it's pretty obvious that rumours of Bitcoin's illegalization would cause its value to crash and - if the rumours turned out to be true - perhaps never recover.) |
|
|
|
It was a great day for Bitcoin when that video was made, but I think it was an even greater day for Bitcoin when this bounty was paid. The system works!  |
|
|
|
What I'm trying to say is that it's not the amount that is meaningful, it's the magic of getting something into a new user's wallet that's important.
I concur that most of the people here who used the Faucet probably experienced the same thing. My point isn't just that giving newbies more to start with is more likely to get them "hooked", but rather that it is more likely that they will actually go out and spend it on something. You yourself are an example of someone who recognized the uselessness of 0.05 BTC (except for the purposes of testing and getting a warm-and-fuzzy feeling) - you sent it back! There are - and will, likely, for a long time be - very few services where you could see 0.05 BTC actually "do something". If we want to see new users spending, donating, trading, generally being adventurous with their bitcoins and feeling their entrepreneurial spirits stoked, I think we need to give them more to work with. |
|
|
|
|
There have been several discussions about how, in order for Bitcoin to have a stable economic foundation and continue to grow, we must get bitcoins into as many people's hands as possible. Instead of putting pressure on those who have already saved up large quantities of bitcoins to find ways to spend / distribute them for the "greater good", I think it makes more sense to try to direct newly minted currency toward new users.
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in the idea of a "charity" mining pool, where the proceeds would be distributed to new users just like the Bitcoin Faucet does, except in larger quantities (perhaps 1 BTC / person?). If the mining faucet runs dry, payout requests would go to a waiting list. Even if the miners weren't earning any profits from this directly, over time it should start to drive up the value of their savings by increasing demand for bitcoins.
The substantial payouts would probably make this more of a target for abuse than the existing Faucet... what security measures would you recommend beyond the Google account verification that the Faucet uses?
|
|
|
|
|
But won't the possibility of anything going viral still be stunted by the sheer difficulty of the average person obtaining bitcoins at this point in time?
|
|
|
|
Even in the bronze age they had the concept of money, I think. The romans I'm sure they did.
Only a very primitive, aborigine-like society can live without it. And in such societies, you won't have true private ownership nor trade.
My only point was that money, as we think of it, is an abstract representation of wealth. It is possible to have an economy with only concrete representations of wealth (i.e. bartering), but such a system is necessarily extremely inefficient compared to what we're used to. If somebody says "money is the problem", they propose reverting to an extremely primitive sort of culture. If somebody say "ownership is the problem", they propose reverting even further. |
|
|
|
I've made a few proposals on this thread myself, but after some thought my favourite options are this symbol and Ƀ. Both symbols are elegant, simple, and currency-like, and would be easy to render and read at any size that ordinary text could be rendered. I'd like to see the B with parallel lines at the top and bottom (though not going through the B), that is in a lot of logos already, get added to the Unicode character set. It looks nice and is easily recognisable as a symbol representing money while still being different enough from the Baht symbol ฿.  Oh, and this option too, of course. |
|
|
|
Money is fundamental.
I'd say private ownership and trade is fundamental, inasmuch as - regardless of the society - it arises spontaneously and can only be eliminated by force, but money itself is only "fundamental" to a certain kind of society. A society with a large population, an active economy, and easy communication over long distances could not plausibly be sustained without money... but theoretically if we were willing to go back to the bronze age, money wouldn't be necessary. |
|
|
|
I've made a few proposals on this thread myself, but after some thought my favourite options are this symbol and Ƀ. Both symbols are elegant, simple, and currency-like, and would be easy to render and read at any size that ordinary text could be rendered. |
|
|
|
you believed it, right? Well, it's april the first, guys!  I curse you. x2 x3 |
|
|
|
Sorry for the delayed response.
"Euler's Equation
e to power (i times π)
Plus 1 is zero!"
Hmm, this is relevant to my interests. XD Here's one of mine: Take the natural log of root i (This is strange, but I swear I don't lie) Ask Euler if you doubt - From his grave he will shout: "That's i times one quarter of π!" |
|
|
|
|
Heh, I'd so do this if:
a) I had money
b) I had gotten around to converting some of that money into BTC
c) I hadn't already made a pact with my brother to go in on a Portal 2 double purchase once condition (a) is met
But just a vote of confidence that there are people out there who would probably be interested in this offer.
|
|
|
|
I don't really have a "chief" thread to link to - perhaps this one would do - but there have been several discussions about the inherent challenges of loaning Bitcoins, most of which boil down to "how can you have a system of trust when transactions are anonymous?" Have you chosen a strategy to deal with this? Or would it be less of an issue with credit unions for some reason? (To be honest, my understanding of CUs vs. banks is a rusty.) |
|
|
|
My proposal for a new payout scheme: http://meta.witcoin.com/p/827/Triangular-number-payout-schemeI state my reasons in the post for thinking this is superior, but I'm not married to this scheme - I'm just throwing it out there because I'd like to see some discussion about pros and cons of various payment options and ideas for how they might be improved. So critique away. |
|
|
|
Here's yet another idea. It's very abstract, but kinda captures the "techiness" and the whole "bit" concept of Bitcoin, scales well, and of course is already in Unicode: ◑U+25D1 CIRCLE WITH RIGHT HALF BLACK (Also, kind of like a C and a B.) I was inspired by this icon on britcoin.co.uk:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
