You and everybody else. So this idea won't work, because by the time the price goes down, everyone else will have bought some too (especially automated trading bots that are faster than you), so the price will have gone up already. Or the price will continue to drop, when you thought it was done, and you'd just lose more money. No one can predict the market (or almost no one, since some people get lucky). If you could do that, you'd have more luck on the stock market. That said...


I use it mainly to store up savings that I can take with me when I decide to retire and travel around. That my savings are predictably growing in value is a nice benefit.


Used to mine, but mining isn't really recommended any more, unless you want to set up mining as a professional business instead of a hobby. You could buy&sell and daytrade, but good luck on not losing everything, because everyone else, with way more experience than you, is buying&selling too. Your best bet is just to buy and hold.


Historically? Maybe once a year. In the future? Who knows. If you're talking about nominal value jumps, like $50, they'll be more frequent in the future, simply because a 5% jump when bitcoin is worth $1,000 is $50. 5% is not a big jump though. If you mean percentage jumps, like 100% or 200%, it's been doing that about once a year.


Bitcoin is decentralized, and thus doesn't have an "official" anything.


Since bitcoin is private, most people who make any substantial money wouldn't tell you. But you need money to make more money, and the more money you have the more you can make. Or lose. But if Bitcoin doubles or triples again next year, your 3BTC should be worth double or triple what you paid for them, so.. that's simple I hope.


Extremely risky. There is little to no chance of it plummeting to being worthless at this point, simply because there are so many people and businesses invested in it, plus bitcoin the protocol has a TON of uses and benefits (http://www.whyisntbitcoinworthless.com), but it can still fluctuate unexpectedly, and make you lose 20% or 30% of your holdings within a day or two. That said, if you have enough bitcoins to live just 10% off of, and your holdings fluctuate 30%, you won't really be affected, since you'll still have the other 70%. Also, look into "dollar cost averaging." It's a great investment scheme for things that are generally appreciating in value. Personally, I switched to bitcoins and am using them for all my cash holdings (only other things I hold is USD denominated mutual funds in my IRA/401k), so, to me personally, Bitcoin risk is pretty low.

Where's the option for 21million? Cause I have all of them on my computer.

It's poisonous shark that's been burried and left to "ferment" (rot) for months until the poison gets diluted, then hung to dry and rot some more. It tastes like jello that's been made with Clorox bleach. Tastes HORRIBLE! But not as bad as surstroming. Goes well with vodka when frozen though.

Woah! What's up with Russia? Don't they have pretty strict gun control policies, with restrictions and licenses and all that?

Plus, I really think we should change the slogan to, "If you make owning guns criminal, only people with 3D printers will own guns" 

You forget, that guy in a bullet-proof vest who has superior firepower? His salary is paid by the guy shooting him in the vest.

Gox was following the rules, since at the time of their founding, Bitcoin was nothing more than collectibles, a hobby, or a fake money that was just a part of an experiment among geeks. Then suddenly Bitcoin started to be worth something, FinCEN changed the rules, and two month later, since Gox hasn't complied yet, seized their money.

I do believe we need a lobbyist. I do agree that Bitcoin is like the inevitable asteroid, but we can't strap rockets to it to bring it down faster any more than government can legislate where it must land and what kind of licensing it must have to make a landing. Bitcoin will get there on its own, and I believe it will be inevitable. In the meantime, we should make sure that it getting there is as easy on Bitcoin users and businesses as possible. This means both, educating the legislators on what Bitcoin is and how to best deal with it, and organizing bitcoin businesses and users into a powerful block that can defend itself, somewhat in Washington (though it may be hard against established lobbyists), and especially in the public eye. We must demonstrate the benefits of Bitcoin, and advertise all the good things about it, so that the established powers don't have a target to attack it with. This means proactively building support, both among legislators and among the general public, in a way so that by the time they come with claims that it's being used drugs and money laundering, everyone will already know it, know that that's no different from how other currencies are used, know that those bringing these accusations are themselves guilty of those crimes (looking at you HSBC), and know that Bitcoin is a better option. This will require a very cunning game of political chess.
Or we can sit back, talk about random meaningless shit, and just let the inevitable happen, including all the crashing and burning that will likely come as a result.

I am still listening to the interviews (was visiting in-laws this weekend, so didn't have time to catch up). I will obviously vote for myself in the first round, but I am not naive enough to believe that I am the best candidate for this job. That said, I am torn between Elizabeth and Joerg. I think Joerg is the best candidate I've heard so far. His views represent mine the closest. Strategically he is also the best to represent Bitcoin, both because he understands what kind of fight will be involved, and most importantly because he can build a sort of offshore beachhead, should things go bad here. Even if they don't, attacking this thing from two sides will make winning this fight easier, since we here in US can point to Germany, the European financial powerhouse, and say, "But they're going along with it," then turn around, point to US from Germany, and say the same thing. On the other hand, I think Joerg may do better on his own, if he was not tied down by the foundation. He strikes me as someone who will do whatever he feels is necessary, regardless of what the rest of the world tells him, so I believe he will do what is right for Bitcoin in Germany whether he wins or not. As for Elizabeth, based on her writing she doesn't seem like a very strategic person, but she does have a way with words. Not necessarily enough to convince any INTJ/ENTJ types, since most of her writings didn't really say much, but maybe that's what the foundation needs if they are to try to persuade Washington and the public: someone who can communicate with feelings about how great Bitcoin is, instead of bothering with logic and detailed point-by-point rebuttals, and who can sell it to the general public.
I'm still leaning towards voting for Joerg in the second vote.

Also, Mycelium is in Europe, as are the Bitcoincard and Trezor. You guys are rocking it over there.

A burger is about $2 bucks. Twice that is $4 bucks. Are you saying Bitcoin will go from $120 down to $4 in value terms?

I'm wondering if Joerg's talents may not be wasted there. Bitcoin Foundation's current goals seem to be pretty focused on marching right into Mordor and keeping Sauron's armies from stomping all over everything. I'm almost wondering if there shouldn't just be other foundations in other countries that focus on local issues and developers, since there are definitely a ton of localized issues and a ton of talented developers around Europe (our best Android wallets and wallet hardware seem to come from there  ). I'd say decentralize the foundations to keep them from being too vulnerable to any single country or group's infighting, while allowing the separate groups to focus specifically on their local strengths and issues,. And I'd say US's obsession with wanting to regulate everything new is quite a massive issue for the established foundation to fight. For example, with their focus on Washington,  I haven't heard the foundation mention anything about the customs issues that have been plaguing the ASIC businesses in China, or the banking issues around UK that have made buying or selling bitcoins a major pain there.

But yes I'll probably vote for him. And would definitely support him should he decide to start his own organization in Germany.

^^ These are views and positions that pretty much all of us hold, though. And maybe I misunderstood what the purpose of the position was. But you're pretty much right that she would be best if all that will be required is to write up communication memos and talk to politicians.

P.S. No, I'm not being a "sore looser," being upset because I might not win. I'm not expecting to, anyway, as there are a lot of really qualified competitors in this race. I'm honestly just concerned that the candidate most likely to win the "individual board member" position may be someone who has pretty much no ties to the community, especially when the general concern I keep hearing about the Foundation is the view that they are an "exclusive club of self-elected elitists" who don't represent, or care about, or have any ties to the Bitcoin community as a whole. Though that's not true, and I don't know if the Foundation even cares about getting support from the overall user base (they may not need it if their main goal is to focus on bringing in business support), but if they do, Elizabeth will have a lot of work ahead of her.

I am serious. I know they sell it in sealed plastic packages. Try not to get the kind that was pissed on though, please.

Luke is an extreme introvert iRL, keeping very quiet and to himself unless asked something directly. At the San Jose conference, he was like some ghost, slinking around the entire conference without saying anything or being noticed. So I doubt him and Gavin being in the same room will be as entertaining as him and Gavin on the same forum.

I admit, I have suspected that one of the reasons for us not being able to figure each other out may be due to a language barrier. I'm fluent in English, Russian, Ukrainian, speak a bit of Polish, Spanish, and Italian, and have some experience with Latin, German, French, and Japanese. I don't know what your native language is, but maybe it's a problem with either you using language in a way you believe to be "complete," while in actuality leaving too much unsaid and unexplained, or it may be that I am overanalyzing your words and statements, and understand them to mean something else based on my own language context, when you mean something else.
Or it could just be that, since about 5 other people have come to the conclusion that you are a sociopath, it's really as simple as that.

I prefer a science/math/physics/logic nerd. If you claim bs, I'll step in and say "prove it." I can't help myself 

I am impressed. Elizabeth apparently makes a great politician and communications manager. Her skills at using many words to say little, and answering questions with very long "feel-good" speeches that lack substance and never actually address the question, is very impressive. In fact, her words are such an inspiration, that I am now quite motivated to work pro-bono as an "individual" liaison, to represent the community to the foundation and vise versa (a position I am convinced will still be wide open after the election is over), even if I should I loose. Elizabeth would likely make an excellent lobbyist though, representing "the individual" to politicians.

Holliday, I think you have your answer.

I understand "uniform" to mean the law being applied uniformly to everyone in a specific region, without anyone being given any special privileges. I THOUGHT by "uniform" you meant the law being the same everywhere around the world, but you corrected me by telling me that's not what you meant.

I understand that you claim that more guns lead to more gun injuries and deaths, but I also understand that this claim is demonstrably false. That is why the rest of us are discussing what exactly causes violence and increase in gun deaths, such as what types of culture, while you are still clinging to the false belief that guns by their very existence cause gun injury and death. Yes, the circumstances of gun ownership in Switzerland are different than in US, but if your claim was true, just the very fact that most people own guns in Switzerland would mean the prevalence on gun injuries and deaths is really high in Switzerland. It's not. So your claim is false. Something else besides guns is contributing to gun injuries and deaths.

I believe you are talking to yourself, past everyone else, convinced you are right and everyone else is an idiot, while living completely in your own little world, outside of which everyone else considers you the idiot.

What? To worship the devil involves believing in the existence of God, and that God created the devil, but rejecting god and believing he is wrong or unjust. Illuminati do neither. Illuminati are atheists who believe the church, along with its fairy tales of gods and devils, is a plague on the world, keeping it in darkness. They are a force that struggles for thought and freedom, against a much greater and more evil force that fights for god and country.

I'm going to say zero...