Just found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98-GJvuwPHw


Unfortunately the sound quality is just horrible.. but hey, at least it's up.

Recently only one thing scares me about Bitcoin's future and it's the number of live nodes. We tout bitcoin as resiliant as bittorrent but right now that's just a bunch of hot air.

You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research.

Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.

Those mother fuckers.   I can't express how angry it makes me that some people out there think they own me.



http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/

I hope this isn't too off topic and I think I could make somewhat of a case that it relates to Bitcoin since it shows how some guy is trying to get funding for his open source software idea and so I decided to share what I just saw in the kickstarter newsletter:


Basically it's a very interesting idea for a code writing platform, learn more about it here:

https://vimeo.com/40281991

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ibdknox/light-table?utm_campaign=Apr26&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

In my opinion the more pressing issue is the steady decline in the number of actual nodes in the Bitcoin network looking less and less like the resilient decentralized bittorrent and more and more like an easy target for the government.

Was this posted somewhere already:

Video interview with Jered Kenna, TradeHill and Bitcoin.com, CEO & Charlie Shrem, CEO BitInstant.com @ Future of Money & Technology Conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3DM6CbR5k

You are but you are wrong. You have to think about all the uses; actual and fictional that both metals have not just industrial use. Gold for instance is seen as money and the best store of value by a lot of people around the world where as arguably platinum isn't and now you need to figure out how that weighs in on the demand for either.


It's not. You just lack the complete information about their utilities and properties as most everyone does and then your conclusions based on an incomplete picture don't match up with reality as they shouldn't.

Is this your opinion or do you have some facts to back that statement? Because if it is true it will be news to me. Besides you left out their properties that are equally important.


I don't know precisely, no one does as Etlase2 pointed it out, but there are theories that you can speculate on based off of their utility and properties.

It's beyond simple to answer your question. All prices are a result of the supply and demand equation.

I'm pretty sure when you're trying to understand how any currency attains a market value you are more precisely asking what about a particular currency drives it's demand.

For instance you compare bitcoins with litecoins and you're asking yourself why they have a different exchange rate. Well first of all both currencies's supply is different and not equal, so already you have a very important difference that will reflect in the exchange rate. But even if you had both at the same supply, their properties would most likely "fuel" different degrees of demand and again you end up with a difference in the exchange rate.

It's all about the supply and demand, and I believe you are asking why bitcoins or any currency are in demand at all, to which I'd say you should look to their utility and properties to figure it out.

Brainwashed in government indoctrination camps aka public schools + brainwashed by the corporate media propaganda machine. Can we really expect anything else?

I thought I used the word dynamic in there somewhere.


Yep I did do so.   

Yes that, I can't stand it. We are not equal and pretending or trying to force it on one another only leads to huge problems and actually even greater inequality and I can't stand the fallacious connotation of it being something we should strive for.

I wonder if they realize they have a dynamic limit to their growth though because they can't allow themselves to ever represent more than say 30-35% of total hashing power or else they'd start hurting themselves by shaking the confidence in Bitcoin and probably crashing it's exchange rate as a result..

Man it irks me when I see this phrase being issued. 

I'd like to challenge this because I don't believe it's necessarily true. If they get a bunch of gamers to mine, the difficulty is going to rise and if the price doesn't follow since these players obviously wont care about their electricity costs and will continue to use this software even if mining at a loss, the raised difficulty and the not high enough price will drive out the current dedicated miners. So net net without a simultaneous significant price increase I don't believe the network will be that much more secure than it is right now.

It may only be more secure in the sense that we will have a base of guaranteed miners who will keep securing the network even if the price doesn't necessarily warrant it.

You guys should click it like I did, the forum becomes much much more enjoyable that way.

More like advocated something like it, it wasn't an outright endorsement or anything like that unfortunately.

Hmmm good point. I think after that argument it's less and less likely my argument is valid.