If you're in the US you can use AngelList's syndicates now, which means you can effectively invest in startups with 100$. To build this on Bitcoin will be difficult or impossible, when you want integration with the law. To make Bitcoin effective there will be a lot of political work to be done, besides the technical work. Pretending laws don't exist is not at all the right attitude IMO. I'm not sure in how far courts/the legal system can be "replaced" with software. I haven't seen a good theory of how that would work in practise (and I've been involved with this on a practical level).

[sarcasm]This means that we will eventually approach a singularity where the bitcoin price becomes infinite.  The only way for this to happen is for the USD to go to zero as well.[/sarcasm]

You composition actually makes the rate at which BTC increases dependent on the rate at which USD decreases. Was that what you had in mind?

The government, or "they" refers to the larger system itself, and not directly to the individuals that make up the system.  The system takes on a life and personality of its own.

Errrm, nothing? Not super exponential growth at least, if that's what you mean.

And I honestly don't know what function would even look S like when mapped to log.

[I know, I know I participated in the previous discussion of that idea. Didn't we conclude that the well known S shaped "tech adoption" curve would still be a straight line when mapped to log. Why does BTC deserve a "super S", if I may ask?

I am frustrated by the number of posters here who see "the government" (aka "they") as some monolithic, Borg-like entity, with a single purpose and perfect coordination.  The truth is that "government" is a bunch of individuals with various viewpoints and ideologies.  The current system sticks together right now because, on the whole, its working for the people involved.

A log trend line (more precisely: linear regression on log charted price history) is a nice little tool to get a feeling for where we are at any point in time compared to the historic trend, and where we're going to be, very very roughly, in a few months or a year from now.

My opinion is it will drop suddenly, or go up suddenly, or stay the same. I know this because of teh research.

Great to hear that conferences regarding bitcoin are being held.

Now they have started calling us gangs

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/bitcoin-gang-gets-67-new-ecurriences-value-grows-to-13-bn/article5515128.ece

I am starting to re-think why i would want to stay in such an ignorant country.

Central banking and the people who control it are at war with the rest of humanity, or at best see everybody else as subjects to be ruled over or livestock to be harvested.

The clash between Bitcoin and central banking will be violent, not because Bitcoin is violent, but because they are ready, willing, and able to bring violence against anything that threatens their monopoly.

Why do you think Krugman said "The US Dollar is backed by men with guns"? That wasn't simply a quip - it's as clear and honest a warning as you're going to get from them.

You're not talking about fundamentally honest people who will gracefully step aside when something better comes along - these are ruthless mafiasos who don't care who they have to crush to maintain their position.

This is a fundamental fallacy shared by many bitcoiners. Governments can easily 'not allow' bitcoin (for all intents and purposes) by simply passing a new law saying any ISP relaying bitcoin related traffic will be shut down.

That move alone vastly reduces the number of miners and nodes probably to the point where a 51% attack becomes easy, and the currency crumbles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely positive about bitcoin but you have to understand how vunerable it is.

Unfortunately, even if a spec is written, unless the majority implementations (realistically this is only bitcoind currently), it is meaningless.

Whether Satoshi sat down to create an explicity weaponised technology is up for debate.

While the security technology is very far from trivial, the "why" was by far the biggest stumbling block -- nearly everybody who heard the general idea thought it was a very bad idea. Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai). Only Finney (RPOW) and Nakamoto were motivated enough to actually implement such a scheme.

The "why" requires coming to an accurate understanding of the nature of two difficult and almost always misunderstood topics, namely trust and the nature of money. The overlap between cryptographic experts and libertarians who might sympathize with such a "gold bug" idea is already rather small, since most cryptographic experts earn their living in academia and share its political biases. Even among this uncommon intersection as stated very few people thought it was a good idea. Even gold bugs didn't care for it because we already have real gold rather than mere bits and we can pay online simply by issuing digital certificates based on real gold stored in real vaults, a la the formerly popular e-gold. On top of the plethora of these misguided reactions and criticisms, there remain many open questions and arguable points about these kinds of technologies and currencies, many of which can only be settled by actually fielding them and seeing how they work in practice, both in economic and security terms.

Here are some more specific reasons why the ideas behind Bitcoin were very far from obvious:

(1) only a few people had read of the bit gold ideas, which although I came up with them in 1998 (at the same time and on the same private mailing list where Dai was coming up with b-money -- it's a long story) were mostly not described in public until 2005, although various pieces of it I described earlier, for example the crucial Byzantine-replicated chain-of-signed-transactions part of it which I generalized into what I call secure property titles.

(2) Hardly anybody actually understands money. Money just doesn't work like that, I was told fervently and often. Gold couldn't work as money until it was already shiny or useful for electronics or something else besides money, they told me. (Do insurance services also have to start out useful for something else, maybe as power plants?) This common argument coming ironically from libertarians who misinterpreted Menger's account of the origin of money as being the only way it could arise (rather than an account of how it could arise) and, in the same way misapplying Mises' regression theorem. Even though I had rebutted these arguments in my study of the origins of money, which I humbly suggest should be should be required reading for anybody debating the economics of Bitcoin.

But you will not get to rewrite corporate law anytime soon. Perhaps somebody will establish a cayman island bitcoin company and then you can register online via BTC. But still your local tax authority will have to say something about that.