Thanks for posting. My recommendation is to tone down the "excitement" level of the text. Don't make it sound salesy. There shouldn't be any exclamation marks. Also, don't use terms like "IMPOSSIBLE to shut down Bitcoin." Statements like that invite controversy because they are almost certainly wrong. Fact is, there might be a way to shut it down and only time will tell if it overcomes these challenges. Simply change that sentence to something like "Bitcoin may be impossible to shut down."  It's actually a stronger, more confident way to write.

Understate the benefits, and remain humble.

Bitcoin is good enough that it doesn't need caps and hyperbole  

New block just created, no worries the aliens returned it.

It's called a free market and an insanely volatile, revolutionary commodity. What exactly did you expect?

Chillax homie.

Tweeted.

No rational person would want to keep their life savings in any one thing, ever.  Diversify!

And cutting edge technology is not the place for savings of any kind. Anyone even thinking about putting savings into Bitcoin is absurdly foolish. Bitcoin is perhaps the most speculative and volatile financial instrument out there.

Bitcoin, however, does not require "everything to believe in it completely and abandon their dollars." All it requires to be successful is people, at the margins, to give it a try. Dollars and BTC are not an either-or proposition.

Of course, many miners will call it quits. Profitability MUST fall in any competitive industry over time until the rate of profit mirrors the capital costs and risks associated with continued operations. Given the fact that some people can mine without paying electric costs, I expect them to be the long-term miners.

The "amateur miner with his video game gpu" is a temporary phenomenon. If BTC prices skyrocket again, this process is drawn out further, but it must return to average profit rates of business.

Wow I get to be included with those fine gentlemen? Shinobi, you honor me!

I care little if the market price falls down to almost nothing. I know what these things are worth. I would not be suprised if the price falls to $.10, then rises to $100 only to fall back again. Bitcoin is unprecedented, and it may take a while for people to understand what they really represent. I am not so shortsighted as to be concerned with weekly, or even monthly, price fluctuations. Anyone who is concerned SHOULD NOT be involved in this at this stage.

The daily price is fun to watch, maybe fun to trade sometimes, but is quite detached from those of us building things behind the scenes. And if I lose thousands of dollars? No biggie... I've spent much more on beer.

And what magical advantage would this new currency have that BTC does not? To my knowledge, there exists no problems with the BTC protocol itself. What flaw will this new currency fix? Bitcoin works beautifully, it just needs more services and convenience built up around it, but this is happening as we speak and a new currency would suffer the same burden.

It's still in beta. Not to mention one need not use a personal client/wallet AT ALL to be involved in Bitcoin. There are numerous online wallets that are as easy to use as Paypal, and these services are growing constantly.

Valid point, Dennis. However, when I get a bank loan to buy a house, we know the bank creates the money at that point and credits my account with it. But when I pay the owner of the house from whom I buying, he then gets the dollars. When he has them, his dollars are not "based on debt." Nobody has a claim to his dollars except him. Properly defined, I'd say the dollars are "based on" market supply and demand for funny green paper. You could say the loan itself is "based on debt," or even that the housing industry is "based on debt," or that the US Gov is "based on debt."  All those things are true, but I think dollars are not based on anything but supply/demand.

But we can all agree Bitcoins are not based on debt, in any sense of the term.

Under the impression that creditors never really lost money?  That doesn't pass the straight face test. If creditors never lost money, and only made it, then everyone would start lending and being a creditor. Of course that's silly. Creditors lose money ALL THE TIME - when they sell a debt to a collection agency, they get less than the original amount of the debt, they're merely trying to limit their losses at that point.

An no, this is not where inflation comes from. Inflation comes from the Federal Reserve, as it prints money. Stated differently, inflation IS the printing of money by definition. Price increases in the market are one effect of inflation.

Yeah Vladmir I've seen this already, and am unconvinced because the premise forgets that money circulates... ie - there can be $100m of "debt" in an economy and only $10m of dollars, yet the debt can still be paid off. A dollar which pays debt is not destroyed, and continues floating around as it's traded.

And so I still think this "dollars are based on debt" concept is misleading. TREASURIES are based on debt - the holder of them relies on payment of the debt. Dollars are not based on debt - the holder doesn't rely on payment from anyone (the dollar has value in and of itself - though we know this is foolish fiat value but that's beside the point).

If I own $10,000 then I have assets of precisely that much. I am not "in debt" in any way. The fact that the Gov is in debt, and may try to tax me, is a separate issue, and doesn't suggest that dollars are "based on" debt. Basically, I think it's a misnomer... it's a  misuse of the term "based on." A gold-standard dollar is "based on" gold, in that you can trade it for gold at a set rate. A treasury bill is "based on" debt, because you can trade it for repayment of credit which you've extended.

There are a million reasons to condemn the dollar... claiming it's "based on debt" doesn't seem to be one of them, or am I totally misguided?

The government IS defaulting on its payments already. It merely prints money and buy treasury debt, thereby devaluing the dollars with which it pays of its creditors. That is a de facto default by any honest accounting measure.

This form is default is called "quantitative easing" so that it sounds fancy and all econ-like.

USA, while not a 3rd world country just yet, is headed in that direction. I notice this every time I visit somewhere else. It is an antiquated and aging machine, which lost its motive power 80 years ago and has been coasting since.

Okay I'm confused.  I understand the US Federal Government is mired is massive debt. I understand how this translates into future taxes to be paid by the populace. I understand the Fed creates money out of thin air.

But how is the USD "based on debt." I don't get that... I don't even know what that means?

The USD isn't "based on" anything. It's just a fiat currency, created at whim and a certain amount each year.  Someone please educate me

I granted that institution no such permission. But if you did, please answer for the graph shown here, on the record of the Federal Reserve:

This whole idea that The Federal Reserve can centrally plan the world's economy has got to stop

I've made this as my FB profile pic today... anyone wanna join?

No idea... trying to "name the correct price" on something so new, revolutionary, volatile, and downright crazy is a fool's errand. Or in other words, target price is between $0.10 and $10,000 per coin. SO many variables, and the timeframe for every variable is also a variable.

I'm buying them because I believe in the concept, and in the market need for frictionless free-market money. I have no idea what the right price is, but I know these are wildly valuable to humanity - we'll see if humanity recognizes this =)

So said Malthus. There is a very important distinction - animals can't increase their "K," while humans do it in perpetuity. We MAKE our "K"... it is not a set limit.