Please read this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

It would slow down the network for a while, as miners stop mining, but the miners will simply start buying up those penny bitcoins instead of spending their electricity money on mining. Some math:

Let's assume the market is perfectly liquid, and there isn't a shortage of sellers on the market, so buying and selling itself does not affect the price (in reality, as coins are bought, each successive coin is more expensive, until coins available on the market dry up, and the price is extremely high)

$100Mil worth of bitcoin bought at $140/BTC -> Gov now has 714,285 bitcoins
Gov starts selling coins for $0.01 each. Total amount needed to buy everything they have to sell is 714,285/100 = $7,142.85
Bitcoin miners themselves spend, what, a few $100k worth on electricity a day? If they see that price, they will stop mining, and that $7k in coins will get snapped up *instantly*.

Let's say gov sells it for $1usd. That's still only $71,428.50 worth for people to buy up. Government would have to buy billions of dollars worth (currently impossible), and sell for not too low prices just to make the effect be more than a momentary blip. in the market.

I didn't say I was intelligent. Only that my personality type is the kind that tends to overanalyze everything, or overplan for every contingency far into the future, instead of just going on gut instinct and winging it. Doesn't mean I come to the right conclusions. That I might seem intelligent is simply your opinion's reflection of me. I never claim that I am personally (or try not to).
And yes, I'm quite aware of that effect. The rather amusing irony is that Dunning Kruger is used quite often by SA goons against bitcoiners, when they claim that Bitcoiners don't understand finance, economics, or math, because they, the SA goons, do, and thuse understand that bitcoiners wrong. That itself is actually a Dunning Kruger effect, in that the SA goons are SO convinced that Bitcoin doesn't make sense, and are so confident of their own superiority with regards to finance, that they can't even recognize the way more advanced understanding of econ and finance when presented by bitcoiners. It's effectively Dunning Kruger types suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect and accusing the actually smart ones of suffering from it.


* Anti-gun laws become obsolete as people are able to print guns and other weapons in private from home.
* Government security struggles to adjust, as tax revenue plummets due to increased cryptocurrency adoption and weakening of government fiat currencies, while at the same time having to contend with more heavily armed criminals.
* Citizens continue to lose trust in government as their currency inflates, and the quality of provided services decreases.
* Government responds to these issues with increased intensity of violence, such as swat team style raids and arrests for increasingly minor infractions, and by adding more things to the list of items it considers illegal (possible even use of cryptocurrency itself).
* The end effect is more expensive use of police powers, combined with reduced tax revenues, resulting in police answering only a limited number of calls for help, and leaving many issues that government considers minor (such as robberies) unresolved.
* As people realize the police is not as effective as they want them to be, they start to purchase or print their own guns for their own defense.
* Initially the rash of shootings increases, as criminals figure out (are more frequently surprised) that they are up against armed citizens, and citizens figure out how to handle their new guns properly. The police is either dismissive of the issue, too busy focusing on their own raids, or is caught in the middle, with increased police casualties and resulting increase in police brutality.
* As the situation comes to a head, and people believe they have had enough, they start to form their own street patrols, which quickly evolve into certain specific people taking charge, and forming their own private police force. Some of these will be neighborhood watches where everyone contributes, some of these will be gangs forming to protect their turf, and some will be started by enterpreneureal types who want to start a private security business. Regardless, they all focus on keeping the neighborhood secure by taking care of only their own small parts of town, where they actually know the people and the areas, instead of a single huge organization trying to take care of the entire city.
* As these groups build more and more reputation, they will be trusted more than the government provided police, who, as more people protest their brutality, will either form into a group protecting a sort of police dictatorship status, or will dissolve if they realize that they are simply not needed any more.
* In the end, for most areas guns will be as necessary, or unnecessary, as they are now, with protection being provided by private local groups, and possibly even competing groups, as well as advances in technology and security systems. In some areas guns will be a necessity due to rampant gang violence (same as in inner cities now), and in some areas guns will be a necessity simply because people will decide that it's cheaper to carry guns and provide their own protection instead of paying someone else, with the private security only providing investigative services.

I fully intend to miss both, as my plane will be landing at 11:30pm Friday (I'm working Friday, so have to fly out in the evening) Let me know how it goes

I am an INTJ. I think everything through about 50 steps ahead and 30 year into the future. I think you're just concerned about things that are non-issues.

I got a room at the airport hotel, and a rental car to drive to the event. I have a spare bed.

Just bought plain tickets, hotel, and car rental for that Altanta conference. Hope you'll be there Phinn, cause it's the ONLY reason I'm coming.

I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.

Just to interject, you know how nowadays you have things like feedback ratings on eBay and credit scores with various companies? I envision that soon enough a lot of that will be consolidated into a single distributed reputation system that will allow anyone who deals with you to see if you are trustworthy or not, and whether to do any business with you or to avoid you. The "whom" will be "everybody" the criminal wants to interact with. The threat of not being able to buy food or lodging will be quite a lot more severe than a threat of getting free food and housing for a few years, so there will be a lot more incentive to maintain your reputation, and try to fix it when it gets ruined.

Yes legal system, no government. You don't need a government to have a legal system. Just people agreeing to abide by an agreed upon set of rules to interact with each other, and ostracize anyone who breaks or doesn't follow them. Look at the modern international trade agreements and dispute resolutions between transnational corporations. No one made the laws they all follow within their group but themselves. There was no one-world-government for them to depend on.

P.S. If you believe you would be too stupid to figure out how to behave yourself and how to settle issues with others without resorting to shooting them and getting shot at in return, I can understand why you wouldn't like such a system. You have consistently pointed out that you need someone with more brains and guns telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do.

P.P.S. "lebertards" believe in limited government that provides for military, security (police), and court systems. That's not what  anarchists believe in when they say that NAP would make those things redundant.

You can imagine all kinds of fairy tales about them, but you'll just know they are fairy tales. Plus both heaven and hell are terrible.

Duh, then the accuser is violating the NAP, and the accused can defend himself with a counter-lawsuit, such as suing for legal harassment. Same way it works now with those abusing the legal system being sued for it. It's not that complicated.
Both parties agree not to aggress against each other, both parties believed the other uninitiated the aggression, so both have an incentive to settle it in court. You keep thinking that NAP simply means "if you step on my lawn, I can shoot you," and trying to come up with some weird gotchas, but NAP is pretty much what we already have today, minus the government's monopoly on force and telling people what they are and are not allowed to do.

Something that might put our extremely new and recent religion into perspective
http://www.waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

(Note the Egyptian empire ruled and had their own religion for longer than the time between Christ and now)

Yeah, I'll take you up on that too

The only way the accuser can force the accused to agree is if the accused has broken the NAP first. Why would you take someone to court if you knew they were innocent?

That may be exceptionally difficult. Is it on the weekend of the 5th?

That's really sad that so many people seem to believe that they are only allowed to do what government tells them is OK

8.1181BTC donation to PanPeru sent:

https://blockchain.info/tx/04a2ce4980740ebc7763d6419d58fe45be295f87144e9be9b9a68e6451f421bb

My schedule is out of town this weekend, then home for two days, and the REALLY out of town Wednesday until the following Wednesday (Oct 3rd). Hopefully I'll see some of you at the conference in Amsterdam next week, and I'll still be checking e-mails and forums, though not frequently.

Sorry to interject with a bit of business finance...
But corporate tax is just a tax on investor equity, who all have to pay 15% capital gains tax, anyway (stockholder's returns get taxed at corporation level, and then at personal investment return level). Plus corporate tax liability is typically zero, since if the corporation sees that it will have to pay tax, it will just issue more bonds, and deduct the bond interest paid to shareholders to offset any profits, making their taxable profit zero. In the end, shareholders still get the same investments, whether from stocks or bonds, corporation pays near 0 tax due to bond interest deductions, and the corporation just becomes more risky due to bond/debt obligations.

P.S. this is why corporations rarely pay tax, and why changes in corporate tax rate typically changes the Bond/Stock ratio issued by corporations, instead of actually increasing government tax revenues.

That said, I am TOTALLY for money going into space exploration instead of the crazy amounts of other waste.

So, is the lesson here that Argentina should be a place we go for vacation, and we should being as many bitcoins as we can, and buy as much as we can with bitcoins while there, even if it means selling coins to locals for pesos, and uses those to buy food and lodging?