Coinbase price for buying BTC is now $5 more expensive then Mt Gox spot!

Ripple is about as P2P as PayPal.

I've been seeing scattered reports of this with increasing frequency over the last few days.

Maybe that's why they are raising their prices, because they are hitting capacity limits with regards to the fiat site of the business.

I've noticed a disturbing trend of trolls casually accusing Satoshi of premining.

It looks like that particular brand of FUD is starting to become popular again.

I'll believe it as soon as someone presents a pricing scheme for it that is both affordable and actuarially sound.

Insurance isn't magic pixie dust - doing it correctly means having the ability to accurately calculate the risk of insured losses, and for that risk to be low enough that customers are willing to pay for it (either directly via premiums, or indirectly via opportunity cost).

I only bet on the future exchange rate by holding or selling bitcoins.

The highest daily weighted price from April was $214.67 on 2013-04-09.

Yesderday's daily weighted price was $219.52 and today's looks like it might break $230 by the end of the day.

We've moved from posting new ATHs on the weekly weighted chart to new ATHs the daily weighted chart. Next stop is new intraday highs.

2015 at the latest. Slight possibility of it happening next year.

There's an instruction manual for BTC trading. You didn't follow it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w

Maybe they are trying to avoid buying on other exchanges entirely and so are trying to match BTC supply and demand internally.

Mt Gox: $232.80
Coinbase: $226.17
Bitcoinaverage.com: $222.62
Bitstamp: $218.93

Coinbase is now closer to Mt Gox pricing than Bitstamp pricing.

Only two other days in history ever traded at highs above that.

Just discovered the sound options for Bitcoinity yesterday.

It makes these large market movements a lot more fun.

The battle lines are drawn, and the players are beginning to choose sides:

http://valleywag.gawker.com/silicon-valleys-ultimate-exit-is-a-fantasy-of-seceding-1449199349

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303661404579175712015473766

It's the only possible outcome.

So your supercomputers and robots make the production of silicon, and thus semiconductors, very inexpensive. The economically illiterate believe this means that semiconductors are no longer scarce.

What actually happens is that since semiconductors are inexpensive people will want to use more of them. If an i7 costs $0.005, then I'll want a room full of them.

It won't be possible for everybody to have as many as they want, no matter how shiny your robot silicon miners, so you'll need some method of determining how much everybody is allowed to have.

If you're not using a market price discovery function, you're back to good old central planning, which is still just as broken now as it was in 1920 when von Mises debunked it.

You're assuming that it's possible to create workable deposit insurance for BTC.

Central banks get away with it by using the printing press and taxation, when they choose to protect depositors at all.

The watchlist alone is not sufficient.

There are too many threads to keep up with on this forum. The only way to have any chance at all is to have multiple lists, arranged in a priority hierarchy.

I use the watchlist. I also use "Show new replies to your posts". The latter has far fewer threads in it, so it's the first one I check. But I also have the problem of having once replied to a thread but no longer having any interest in it.

With the ability to automatically add new threads from specific forums to the watchlist, mine tends to get rather large. I'm no longer able to keep up every thread in my watchlist, so now just browse subject lines to see which threads might be interesting.

I hardly ever make it to "Show unread posts since last visit" any more because that list is even more difficult to keep up with, and that's with most of the forum areas on ignore.

Many people will think that giving their bitcoins to a third party to hold for them is a good idea.

They'll learn their lesson, sooner or later.

Extremely bullish people might not buy a house even if they can afford it, because they understand the importance of international mobility.

Also they might understand enough about economics to realize that house prices are still at unsustainably high levels, and understand enough about finance to realize that houses are durable consumer goods, not assets.

It's not like you don't know the answer though.

The central planners will decide how much of each resource everybody needs, and will dictate how it will be provided to them, so that they can declare victory when everybody receives their rations.