Nice video!

Just looked very briefly... had a suggestion.

On the home page that user FIRST sees when visiting the site - embed a widescreen (but not too big) video of actual gameplay... just 20 seconds or something. Then user can see the action, and will be tempted to pursue it.

As it is now, user just sees obstacles, no sexy action

I registered a domain with Cinfu, using Bitcoins as payment. Went through smoothly and I was very happy with them.

Well this Dwolla story gets more interesting!  TradeHill released a PR today on their site regarding the issue, and I found this:

From Jared Kenna of TradeHill:

I think we can assume that MtGox is thus Dwolla's largest customer, right? So the two top customers of Dwolla's growth are both Bitcoin exchanges. My original suspicion seems incontrovertible now - Dwolla's celebration of growth in their recent announcement is really a celebration of Bitcoin's success, not exactly theirs.

Saving, or "hoarding" as it's derogatorily labeled, also provides an additional benefit to the community which is rarely considered.

By buying and holding these assets, the price is driven up toward what the holders of the coins believe to be the "true value"... whatever that means. By driving the price up in the present, the price signals to all the various components of the Bitcoin economy that there is significant interest in this thing. When entrepreneurs see the $100m market value of all btc, it gets their attention. They start projects which they may otherwise not have started had the price been lower.

Speculating on coins' value brings pricing signals into the present from the future (whether buying long or selling short). Having these price signals in the present is a huge value to the market participants, and helps fosters the progression of the market.

Consider the counter-factual... if everyone was -only- using btc as a currency and not as an investment. The price per coin would be much lower because supply would be higher. Many people who are developing the infrastructure and businesses behind the scenes may never have been interested if a Bitcoin was still worth $1.

tl;dr - speculation in any direction serves an important role in any efficient market. Be careful about demonizing it.

It's very temporary, constantly diminishing, and following a set pattern known to all market participants.

Inflation for Bitcoin falls to zero. Value for USD falls to zero. Big difference.

That paper was good evidence that Bitcoin is, in fact, actually pretty darn anonymous. After all their analysis, they didn't provide a single piece of personal identifying information about the thief. Not even an IP address!

It's almost like the whole paper was written to prove the counter-point to the paper's title... hmm.

My girlfriend thinks they're cool and she's encouraging of my new hobby/investment... but she has no idea what the ramifications are of these coins.

My sister wants to look into them further, but told me not to mention them until after she passes the bar exam this month. Once passed, she'll start researching and I know she'll be hooked.

My friends are all interested by skeptical. They're waiting to see if others adopt them... they don't want to be first movers.

My father hopes they'll help bring down central banks.

The author of the OP's cited article posted this in his own follow-up comments, and I think it describes whether Bitcoin IS or IS NOT anonymous very well...

"It is possible to use Bitcoin in a way that is almost certainly anonymous, in the same way it is possible to get almost certain anonymity on the Internet, by using encryption, onion routing, and never associating your identity with your actions.

Our point is that you don't get this anonymity automatically, and that most casual users of Bitcoin may not be anonymous, even though many of them may believe they are."

I think people should start using the phrase, "Bitcoin is not automatically anonymous." Indeed, saying that Bitcoin "is anonymous" or "is not anonymous"... both of these statements are untrue and misleading.

Gresham's Law is only relevant when there is, as your quotation states, a fixed exchange rate between a "bad" money and a "good" money.  When the exchange rate is market-based, as with Bitcoin, Gresham's Law is not relevant.

In these cases, another law comes into play. It's called "Fiat money sucks balls law" and it predicts Bitcoin will be huge 

Sorry if I was confusing. Bondholders are "trapped" in the sense that A) they are required by their own strict rules to only in vest in AAA securities and B) few if any alternatives exist with the market depth needed to absorb all the bondholders stuck in US securities.

Now, just because they're "stuck" in this way doesn't mean it is impossible for them to bail. It's just difficult. However, if (when) the AAA rating is lost by the US, all those funds will be forced to dump treasuries by their own rules.

Also, I really think many investors view the US as "exceptional"... they believe it is immune from true fiscal collapse because it is the hegemon. No matter how bad the US gets, investors still see it as the "least worst".

Bitcoin is as anonymous as the user would like to make it.

One can make it completely anonymous by simply swapping coin ownership in physical form - such as with Bitbills. These transactions never appear on the Block Chain, and as such using the Block Chain to determine ownership becomes highly problematic.

I think it should be understood that Bitcoin doesn't provide -automatic- anonymity. However with a bit of effort it can be effectively anonymous.

Actually I bet both of them would confirm my statement. It was their own systems which were compromised and they'd be the first to acknowledge that.

LOL I think many of you guys missed the whole point I was making. I never said Bitcoin wasn't useful - indeed I am one of its biggest proponents. Rather, I said that it's not backed by another commodity, because it's a commodity in and of itself. Similarly gold is very useful, and is not backed by anything.

Something requires "backing" only when it's not useful/valuable on its own accord... such as with fiat paper. Bitcoin doesn't need backing, because it's valuable by itself.

I'm just debating terminology here maybe... concepts such as "use" and "cost" and "value" and "backing" are all important, and I see lots of confusion of such terms here on the forums. The concept of "backing" does not apply to Bitcoin (nor any other commodity).

Perhaps you are forgetting that a bulk of the US bond market is funds that mandate investment in only AAA-rated securities. There are only a handful of nations that have AAA ratings, and the US is by far the biggest and most liquid. So it is fair to say that bondholders have gotten themselves trapped. Many funds simply can't move out of the US bond market, and they'll go down with the ship - or they're bail the moment the US loses the AAA rating.

Bill Gross and the rest of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world, have had a somewhat different reaction to the US debt situation than just "meh." It is not a "meh" situation.

You are forgetting an extremely important aspect of Bitcoin. The fact that it is NOT backed by anyone is one of its greatest advantages. Bitcoin is not the responsibility nor liability of any group or nation. Thus, the failure or targetting of no group or nation could bring Bitcoin down.

THAT in itself is absolutely revolutionary.

If Apple or Zimbabwe or Hooters creates their own similar currencies, they lose this main advantage, and upon losing it... how would they expect to overtake the adoption of Bitcoin?

We already know that Facebook has now created its own currency. They have 1000000x more name recognition than Bitcoin, they have billions of dollars, and many smart people.  And you know how many Facebook credits I intend to purchase?  Zero.

The fact that you are dealing with lots of fraud is perhaps the best reason to look into Bitcoin. Zero percent chance of chargebacks and "fake cards."  Bitcoin is more safe than other forms of online payment.

If you have a source to refute my belief in the flying spaghetti monster I'd like to hear THAT! Until then, I'll continue to believe it.

All kidding aside... obviously Bitcoin is effective for the illegal drug market, but that's not sufficient reason to make a statement as strong as yours.

I don't think a country's government will ever willingly adopt Bitcoin as the official currency. If a national currency becomes Bitcoin, it will be because the citizens refused the "official" currency and used Bitcoins instead.

The ability to print money is the number #1 source of power and control a government has. They would put forward a million reasons why they shouldn't abandon that... it'll be up to the citizens to listen or not.

Source?