There's a duty on forum members to make constructive posts. It's VERY unfortunate that idiots make meaningless comments just to get their post count higher for a $0.15 of payment. However I think the instances of these bullshit posts are few and far between. And while it's fine that forum members report these bullshit posts to the moderator they shouldn't have to! The owner of the signature campaign should be policing their advertisers and refusing payment for bullshit posts. It's the only way that we'll all see a cleaner collection of thread comments and more constructive posts.

Some of the people here criticizing forum members earning income from signature ads are appearing VERY hypocritical. Some of these people (who claim to be offended) even have personal ads in their signature, so clear that their frustration could not that people advertise but rather that people are getting paid to advertise.

It's important to put this debate into perspective so that the right solution can be found...and so that the rule abiding, signature selling posters among us aren't being ostracized for our enterprising approach to bitcoin (especially from accusers who clearly display their hypocrisy in their signature.)

Signature selling helps grow the Bitcoin economy...increasing awareness of bitcoin companies, getting paid in bitcoin, using that bitcoin to buy goods and services.

Definitely! These companies are having a hard time getting traditional banks and credit card providers to service their business transactions because of the type of business they do. Bitcoin has no such discrimination!

Do you have money with this firm? How long have you been using them?

It's so tempting but the math just doesn't work out. It HAS TO BE a ponzi scheme. There's nothing this company can do with our bitcoin that will earn them 2% or more per day, enough to pay off what they're promising.

The problem with earning interest is the anonymity of bitcoin control. There was a company advertising on this forum that offered big interested, daily, for savings and they paid as promised for two weeks and then they disappeared...with everyone's holdings. Unless there are links to what holdings are mine and protection for me (or any of us) the interest paying opportunities won't be successful. There's way too much risk.

The longest is 3 days.

What does the "real time" choice mean?

If the bitcoin price stabilized some we could see interest being paid on deposit accounts with Coinbase and other BTC holding/savings firms.

What an ironic comment. Speaking of wasting time...why did you post at all?

Use a bitcoin mixer and further remove yourself from the transactions.

Banks aren't based on loans, that's just how they make money/revenue. They could make their money in other ways and still "hold assets" for customers. Bitcoin banks already exist, check out Coinbase.

To help you figure it out let's do a little math in USD to figure out a minimum amount of spending power.

To eat in retirement (just to eat) for 2 people, at an average of $5 per meal per person, eating 3 times a day, 365 days a year for 20 years you'll need $219,000. That's just to eat in retirement (and a $5 meal at that!) Now you can figure out how much additional money you'll need to live in retirement and how many bitcoins it might take you to get there based on whatever future price you think is realistic.

Enjoy the saving!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/banks-in-europe-are-charging-to-hold-deposits--could-it-happen-here-195532627.html

YES!

The linked article talks about how a bank in Denmark is charging its customers for the privilege of holding their savings, negative interest rates. The bank doesn't pay you for your savings on deposit but you pay the bank to hold your savings secure because the market alternatives are so risky. The article speculates (very broadly) that it could happen in the US...it likely won't, but if it did guess what would provide a good alternative to traditional savings?

You guessed it...the almighty B-T-C...what an interesting turn for bitcoin that would be.

An interesting Google trends search we could do this week would be to see if "bitcoin" is searched more after CNN's Morgan Spurlock Inside Man episode airing this Thursday. If we see a spike on Thursday or Friday we could conclude that the CNN piece helped increase interest in Bitcoin among the masses.

So you impressed that when the price of oil has peaked there are more searches on Google about "oil"? Would this not be obvious? If a World War started today and Google searches peaked for "war" tomorrow would you also be surprised?

Google Trends is a cool tool but you need to cross reference two seemingly mutually exclusive terms to see if there might be a similar trend. From there you'd have to do more analysis to see if the similar trend is causal or even correlated between the two terms.

None of these examples do this...you all are just posting trends on a single term that has no direct link to bitcoin.

Guys, what am I missing from your posts? Correct me if I'm wrong here...

This is a bullshit post. None of these trends are related to each other...why did you share them? Further, Google doesn't forecast the trend on the search for "bitcoin" so why the disclaimer?

This information is meaningless.

They have the same uses - they're used as a store of value or as currency. Where's the difference you speak of?

Speaking to the obvious currency vs. asset class question that remains for BTC, did Gold have the high relative asset value when it was primarily used for currency? I would expect not but I don't know...anyone know for sure?

Another thing I'll be interested to see (and it will take some time for the trend to materialize) will be how BTC reacts to the rise and fall of the stock market. Gold tends to react inversely, will BTC have the same relationship?

The technicals have looked good through that higher volume. Looks like there's support above $200, which is good for all of us.

Are people still talking about how the ex IMF chief was framed? There was a lot of talk about that a few years back.

Yep, this is correct. The purchasing power of the dollar isn't measured first against other currencies, but against a "basket of common goods". That's how the US determines it's inflation rate each year.

Purchasing power of bitcoin doesn't need to be in relation to fiat, in fact if it were it wouldn't indicate how much goods or services you could purchase with bitcoin, but rather how much of the fiat currency you could buy with bitcoin. And if both bitcoin and the fiat are declining purchasing power is disappearing but you wouldn't know it by the conversion rate.