Would I be able to help out?

Edit: That website is super slick, well played!

Used to be a Firefox evangelist, and rally for them with the same enthusiasm as I have now for Bitcoin, haven't been one for a long time, since the browser and the web landscape has been fundamentally shifted, the war has already been won, and they were the guys that made it happen, Google only jumped on the bandwagon that Mozilla had built, in fact, Mozilla and Linux are the projects that gave me faith in the possibility of changing the world with the sort of open source projects that no big guy gives a damn about at the beginning.

This action would be important for me as I have long hoped to see them moving from Google as their main source of funding.

This comes by way of someone close to Bitcoin discussions in Washington, DC.  Apparently, FinCEN agents are looking for members of the Bitcoin community to form a self-regulatory organization with voluntary approval procedures to work with financial regulators.

If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization.  

"password is too long must use less than 30 char"

Why?

I use 32 by default. Why not make the max like 200 just incase?

Omg. Srsly, you need someone who knows what its doing (your coders don't). Btw, I found more issues but I don't have the time to go through them (already wasted enough time with bitstamp scam). Whoever is coding that is complete idiot and a noob and should not be touching financial apps with a 10 foot pole.

Are you talking about liquidity or leverage?

Liquidity is certainly essential for easy transfer of money. It also opens up several new forms of businesses within the broader economy that couldn't have existed without liquidity (for example, something like a Bitcoin faucet could never exist without a very liquid currency). Also, if the currency is liquid, the premiums go down (on exchanges for instance) for buying and selling that currency either through other currencies or through goods/services produced.

Oops!  I had a PM this morning from a guy who was short around $500 on his payout.  Looks like I took the tip from the wrong guy. 

I've paid him out in full now, and you too Seal.  Guess I had the wrong account number for you after all.

Almost every article published to date that covers the topic of bitcoin as an investment takes it as a given that bitcoin is a risky investment.  "Only invest what you can afford to lose" is a common sentiment even on the bitcoin forum.

Although I agree that bitcoin should/can be considered a risky investment depending on the context, I submit that a small bitcoin investment is actually a conservative/risk lowering investment for most US investors.  This conclusion is reached when you consider the full context and diversification of the average investment portfolio in the US.  It looks a little something like this: stocks, bonds, real estate, cash and cash equivalents, and precious metals, typically in that order based on the relative weight of the investment.  Note that all of these assets are directly linked to US dollars other than precious metals and real estate.  If we make the assumption that diversification lowers risk, it also makes sense that the average US investment portfolio should not be overly weighted towards US dollar denominated assets.  Sure the US dollar is the world's reserve currency and therefore has a "low-risk" tag currently associated with it, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to have almost all investment assets directly tied to the US dollar.  Proper diversification includes diversificatoin into other asset classes, including non-flationary currencies such as bitcoin.  Considering the potential that non-government backed crypto-currencies have to disrupt the monetary system, even if one believes that the probability is small of a wide scale disruption, it still makes sense to have some assets (i.e. bitcoin) that would benefit from such a disruption.  

I'll admit that bitcoin fits the classic definition of a riskly investment.  However, I would argue that for an investor that currently has a high allocation of stocks and bonds, an investment in bitcoin would actually lower risk for the complete portfolio rather than raise it as it is commonly assumed.

Therefore, I no longer think it is appropriate to broadly classify bitcoin as a "risky investment" to US investors.  It is certainly not a non-risky investment, but all such labels should be taken in the context of a given investors full investment portfolio.  

So essentially, these are monetary crimes. And since the law enforcement cannot solve the crime or catch the "bad guys" they have to lock down the whole monetary system just in case "bad" money makes it through.

So because some people may use money for bad things and they are too incompetent to catch them, the government must know every transaction that anyone ever makes with money?