A lot of people will say that the tokens themselves should be immensley valuable, as you need to incent the miners to keep the chain secure. Others, like Buffett, say that a Bitcoin is akin to a check, with not much value on its own.

I think Bitcoin isn't bound to undermine fiat currencies but as an adjunct, a means of transferring value in a low cost manner that doesn't depend on banks or governments. In that situation, coins don't need to have tremendous value, only need to be valuable enough to accommodate the amount of funds that will be in transfer at any given time.

It's the reducing mining awards that would stand to push the price up. Right now, mining is profitable for the operators due the 25 btc block award. As that declines, the value of Bitcoin will have to go up or else fees will have to skyrocket, taking away the "low cost" advantage of Bitcoin. Will the rest of the world buy into that? That the value of previously existing coins should double simply because the rate of issuance declined? Or that they need to pay greater fees because of that?

Right now, bitcoins are cheap to transfer because the cost to do so is subsidized by new coins. When those decline, fees will have to increase, maybe even substantially, and that could undermine the low cost argument that's put forward constantly.

So could someone put forward a block chaim sans Bitcoin? They could, it'd be quite centralized though. But since the advent of asics, mining has already become a more and more centralized affair. A single company or a duopoly controlling the block chajn would obviously be mocked by the community, but might just be good enough for the rest of the world.

Off topic. But what are the legitimate reasons someone would someone would want to buy this? I could see someone wanting to look legit when putting forward a scam, but otherwise, if someone has a legit product or service, why risk sabotaging it by using a fake account to promote it? Or am I missing something?

There are sites to help you choose the best coin at any given moment. If your'e on top of it, you might do well, as there are sometimes brief distortions with various alts, where you can swoop in, mine them, even for just a couple of hours, and make 5x or 6x what you would have gotten from mining a mainstream coin.

Most of those are Scrypt coins, though, not SHA256; of the SHA coins, generally BTC is the most valuable to mine...

I don't read his quote as him saying that it won't have much impact, only that he views it as a tool to use to transmit value, not the value itself.  Bitcoin could become the norm person-to-person international transfers, that doesn't mean that it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, it just needs to be valuable enough to accommodate the total amount of funds in transfer at any given time. Assume in a few years that there are 15 million coins to be circulated (assuming some are untouchable, due to simply being lost, or due to die hard "hodlers" refusing to part with them, potentially, say they're valued at $200 each, that's a system that can have $3 billion in transit at any given time... That's HUGE. But that also represents a decline in value from where its at now...

I'd speculate that it's memories the brief moment that it hit $1,000, along with the echo chamber in here that feeds peoples greed that levels such as $1,000, $5,000 or even $10,000 per BTC are "reasonable" future valuations for it....

Don't get me wrong, I think that Bitcoin here for the longhaul, but I don't think its tearing down the system, causing fiat currencies to collapse, or that its appropriate the fill the void should any of those currencies collapse. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a future... Could be as a low cost means to transferring value, or as the a borderless technology of the internet...  But non of those require it to be worth any more than it is today...

Bitcoin is based on tech, yes, but that's the minor part of the story. You don't need to understand merkle roots and such to understand Bitcoins use and potential, just as you don't need to understand C, Java or Cobol, or have an knowledge about TCP/IP in order to understand banks and banking; Bitcoin is no different; it's a technology, for certain, but it's use and application are certainly understandable to a layperson who wants to devote more than a couple of minutes to the task;

It's easy to say that Buffett's old and he just doesn't get it, but he's one of the sharpest investment minds out there, understands banking and finance better than anyone here, and unlike the vast majority of people here, who can easily get trapped in the self-reinforcing echo chamber that is here, telling us that the sky is the limit, individual bitcoins could bet worth millions one day, etc... He's a disinterested outside observer, who can offer the most unbiased analysis out there... I'd find much more value in Buffetts words, for instance, than the Winklevoss twins. True, he doesn't spout the party line, but just because you don't like his opinion, that doesn't make it any less valid.

Sure, Buffetts famous. But his fame is solely the result of his success at doing research, thinking critically, and most importantly, investing against the tide.

I'm certain that had Buffett said the exact same thing that he said, except ended it with "Bitcoin's a great idea, and I'm buying some personally", there would be no attacks no the guy, no one saying he didn't do his research, no one saying he's out of touch, or doesn't like tech. But because his opinion differs than what we want to hear around here, its open season.

On my desktop, with storage plentiful, I use the full, official client; on my laptop, where storage is more limited, electrum is it...

I can't rationalize storing my coins with anyone else, and would urge anyone who uses a web wallet to try to learn to hold your coins yourself... At least until "real" wallet services show up with things like full insurance for all of their clients funds.

As others have said, need more information about what your goals are... Becoming a bitcoin core developer? Developing desktop or mobile applications? Web services? There are so many ways that you could approach Bitcoin, without more information, it's impossible to give you a decent answer...

Well, it certainly has some form of value, being that governments around the world mandate that their citizens both accept it purchase goods and settle debts, and require its use for payment of taxes; Gold doesn't have that going for it, yet it is claimed to have intrinsic value because nearly the entire world recognizes that others see value in it. Bitcoin lacks all of those.

And it sounds to me that he understands it; first and foremost it is a payment system. That's what its advertised as, a means of transferring value quickly, with no fees, no barriers and no charge backs. There is the scarcity factor which serves as a cap on how much can be in transit at any given time, but ultimately, its best use is in transferring value. That people "hodl" it awaiting increases is another thing...  And though "hodlers" and others claim the blockchain itself serves at bitcoins intrinsic value, many others will disagree; the fiat financial system contains records of countless transfers, etc, but that's not why some might say there's intrinsic value there... Only because goods and services can be readily purchased, not because there's a clear record of every past transaction... where, especially in these days of dragnet surveillance, many appreciate cash as a means of not sharing with everyone in the world what they're up to.

Put another way, a lot of people hope that it will replace the dominant currencies; in order to do that, it first must be transacted with widely. But if it fails in that first, lofty goal, that doesn't mean its a failure, it still has plenty of use to it.

Is ASICMINER a legally formed Chinese entity?

Do chinese corporations need to have registered agents for service of process as they do in the US and many other countries?

Who is their registered agent?

Who are the directors of ASICMINER?

No... this is not just a "simple" case of suing a chinese company.

Reminds me of the 90's when people thought that corporate paperwork was too much burden, that all one should have to do to go public was registered a dot com name... (for real, this was discussed on one of the business news channels way back when.... back when Netscape was a going concern). peaple fell into that new paradigm here too... "oh, awesome tech! I wanna invest... what's that? it's not a real corporation? No prob! No registered agent or even business address so that i can contact someone if I have concerns? No prob... besides, corporations are just legal constructs of the governments that we all hate". Then things blow up.

Word to the wise. I haven't even looked. But if there are other companies listed on exchanges, people would be well advised to demand that those companies formally register as such and actually assign them real shares, rather than the phantom shares and promises that they all seem so found of issuing...

He doesn't "hate" gold per say, just thinks its a lousy investment. Most will say that gold should make for a great store of value because its value will keep pace with inflation. Most people invest because they want to do better than the rate of inflation. But gold itself is an unproductive asset. You buy an ounce of gold, and that's all you'll ever have. You buy a share of a company and reinvest your dividends, and that one share will grow into quite a bit more than that, given enough time. So, even if the value the company itself only grows at the rate of inflation, by virtue of reinvested dividends, you'll surpass that rate. Gold offers no such promise.

On the other had, Buffett did at one point attempt to corner the silver market. So, say what you want about his dislike of precious metals, the guy is shrewd and if he thinks he can make money at something he'll likely give it a go. Just as where we're at now, if he took a liking to bitcoin, he could move into the market and cause huge distortions. But he won't.

As for your sentiment about gold... It sounds great, but it's not true. It hasn't dumbfoundedly climbed in value decade after decade... Goldbugs were burned throughout the 80's and 90's... The 00's, they had their chance to shine. But here we are, halfway through this decade and its basically flat. Sure, those who owned at the start and sold at the peak could have made a fortune, but those that they sold to would have lost out by that same exact fortune.

I think that Buffetts track record is one that shows that he's someone to be listened to.

And many of us will say that Bitcoin is just as effective whether its worth $1 or $1,000, the only thing that gets affected is how much value can be transmitted at any given time.

But some people say that Bitcoin is a better gold than gold, that the blockchain is its intrinsic value... And when cast in that light, I'd agree with Buffett, actually... I'm not a gold bug by any stretch, but I acknowledge that gold has an intrinsic value; firstly because nearly all of the 7 billion of us believe it to have value. Beside that, it does have some actual uses; its extremely efficient at transmitting electricity, for example.That alone makes it a shame that its so rare, that we can't deploy it into the power grid.

But for Bitcoin? It has value only to the tiny subset of the population that believes it to; when 99.95% of the worlds population have no interest in Bitcoin, well, that doesn't show much for its intrinsic value. Nor do i think that the blockchain itself provides it with intrinsic value - that's like a circularly self-enforcing proposition; this thing created from nothing has value because it is a record of who else has these things. If you're outside of the Bitcoin circle, the past transactions mean nothing to you, intrinsic value wise...

NOTE: That's not a bash against bitcoin, odd as that may sound. Dollars have no intrinsic value. Put yourself on another planet with a huge pile of dollars, and all you've got is kindling. But the difference is, they have recognized value - because the US Government says we must transact with them. There is no hard and fast rule how much a dollar should be worth, only that some quantity of them will buy something.

But back to bitcoin. Yes, I don't think it has intrinsic value. But I do think that it has value, simply because there is a small slice of the population (us) who believe in its value. And that's enough to keep the bitcoin economy and ecosystem going. Among all the other reasons why I don't think that Bitcoin should ever replace fiat currencies for the mainstream, and instead remain a nationless alternative, the value proposition is another one.... People can argue that dollars euros etc, are valuable because if you take them anywhere on earth, people will transact with them. Gold has a value that's been recognized for millennia. But to tell the layperson that bitcoins value stems from it's keeping record of all the transactions before it... Well, that doesn't strike me as too valuable.

I'm sure that plenty of people are blasting Buffett in this thread, saying he's out of touch, doesn't get it, doesn't do tech, etc. None of that matters... Buffett is a money man. He understands that. He might not know cryptographic signatures, but in the grand scheme of things, that's just a minor detail.

I worry for a lot of us here... IT's so easy to get stuck in this echo chamber and think so optimistically. That's fine and good. It's great to have hope. But there's a lot of people who act incredibly irrationally, putting 100% of their net worth in BTC for instance. You can have all the hope in the world for Bitcoin, and it could be a technology and monetary unit without flaw, but unless the rest of the world catches on, your savings might not be there when they're needed. It's incredibly risk to be 100% invested in any one asset; whether its a single stock where that company could go down in flames, a single actively managed mutual fund, where not matter how good the track record, its manager could make a series of bad calls, or even a single asset class (i.e. all stocks and no bonds or vice versa). But to go all in on an idea that's barely 6 years old... That's bewildering. Sounds great if your only outlook comes from here, where everyone is constantly talking about its glorious future. But your bet involves the rest of the world too... Will they come around or wont's they? And having all your eggs in one basket, no matter how much faith you have, is not investing. It's gambling. Show me the smartest person in the world, and I'll show you someone that's been wrong about something in their lives. None of us are the smartest, though, and despite what we all say, we could turn out to be wrong.

Sorry... Got off topic though.

I'll just leave it at, when Buffett speaks about something in finance, I'm inclined to listen. Yes, he doesn't know iPods or CPU's. But bitcoins proposition is not a technological one, and it doesn't take a techie to understand it or not. And if anyone says otherwise, that it is a technological thing, and that's why buffett fails to understand it, I'll just point out if you need to be a techie to understand it, then lets give up hope for mass adoption, because most of the world aren't techies.

Sure, it might work once or twice. Any more than that, or any significant amounts of money, and Paypal will catch on real quick...

IP addresses, cookies, past activities in the accounts, all can be used to root out this scam.

And once they unravel what's occurred, no doubt they'll look at your earlier transactions and, yes, refund themselves from the other accounts.

You don't have to use paypal. Purely your choice. Going through all these hoops to prevent them from reclaiming money that they'll have to pay back in the event of a charge back, that could be construed as intent to defraud them. If you're worried about getting charged back that badly, then easy - don't accept paypal. Or do so and take responsibility for the risk you're taking on.

That's what its all about - you want a benefit (accept paypal) without attendant risk (chargebacks), and instead opening yourself up to fraud accusations, if eBay felt so compelled....

Yes, just build your own interface to Bitcoind...

I think Google wallet is more to do with competing against Paypal;

That said, since BTC can be so trackable, and we know how much Google loves gaining extra info, it wouldn't be surprising if they added BTC support at some point... That shouldn't be something that any of us look forward to, though...

Hard to read machine translations.... "roasted of the cat...."

After a bit more time, I'm wondering how this actually occurred, or why it took so long for it to be discovered? Was the hash rate, or the public key that coins were to be delivered to, were neither of those verifiable? Or did everyone just assume someone else was checking on that part?

It's impossible to say what the "best" TFA is.... It's a part of a system where if one part breaks, the whole thing is for nothing... To label one "the best" without looking at the other pieces is impossible... Moreso because we only see closed solutions (closed source apps, closed source hardware, etc), so we can only guess as to how good the RNG's involved are...

Trading is a zero-sum activity. For every person who had earned $1000, other people will have lost that same amount; more even, due to commissions/spreads.

If they have the money to pay their power bill, wouldn't they have money to buy the coins?

I would say that 23 miners isn't a different story, it is the story.

My guess, they saw your power consumption, got a warrant thinking you had a grow operation, and took the hard drivesooking for evidence. You can hopefully sort it all out by talking to them.

One other, worse, scenario is that someone you know knows you're mining and they stole the drives in search of your wallets. That makes less sense, as they probably would have taken the whole conputers, not just the drives.

Instead of block chain.info, may I suggest electrum? It's a lightweight client (no download of the block chain needed) that runs on your desktop