In research papers the passive voice is often used. Likewise the royal we is often used even with one author (e.g. In a dissertation) despite Mark Twain's comment on the matter.

It does depend on the publication guidelines and local custom.

Did you pay a fee?  What was the transaction?  (This should probably not be in the FAQ section though).

That was the point.  

Both are biased and if you don't know the poll internals, you don't know which way it is biased or whether it is biased at all.

(and by the way, your sample is heavily biased too - "regulation" is an emotion heavy word, as is the phrase "without backing of a country.")

Exactly.  You need to see the internals of the poll before you can trust them.

Like I said above, this will be an alt-coin and a hard fork for bitcoin. You'd have to find someone to write the code for you and then convince people to switch to your fork. It seems unlikely people will do so but the new alt-million-year coin would not be bitcoin. Without some clear need it is highly unlikely the developers will code this for you.

All that said, the code itself seems simple based on your description so it would be pretty easy to implement. The issue is convincing people to switch to your alt-coin. I believe it would take a very good reason to get people to do so. Selling it would be something you'd have to do.

It is software so you can do pretty much whatever you'd like. This would be a hard fork so you'd end up with coins on both forks if you had coins now, then you'd just have to convince people to switch to your fork for your new alt-coin, million-year-coin.

:-)

It would be really nice to see the exact questions.  Sometimes they are biased to obtain a specific result (e.g. push-polling), so knowing the questions and the context in which they are asked is important.  E.g.

Q 1. "Bitcoins have been used to buy drugs.  Have you heard that?" 

Q 2. "Should bitcoins be banned?"

v.s.

Q 1. "Bitcoins have been used to send money to charities around the world.  Have you heard that?" 

Q 2. "Should bitcoins be banned?"



:-)

The end of Moore's law has been predicted since the early 1980s, just like 300 baud was the max modem speed.

Perhaps the "experts" are right this time, but I wouldn't count on it.

Good point. Terrible reporting.

Is it really gold that is volatile being priced in fiat or fiat being volatile when priced in gold?

"Tulsa World"

Must have a different definition of "notable".

Then fork it and implement the changes - unless that is what you've been working on since March and are ready to release some alpha or beta code, which would be cool.

Code will give some very good data as to how it works, potential issues etc.  Discussing it here will do little, but since it is open source, implementing will do a lot.

"Price Looks to Slip Further"

What a meaningless phrase.  Over what period? For how long? From what starting price?

Really though if they really were seers they would be rich and not writing for a magazine.

Talk about a statement completely at odds with reality!  A central bank promising stability is like the number two promising to be an odd number.

qft.

"Redistributing"/taking/stealing coins from someone who hasn't touched them is the problem with this idea. All these ideas like blocking the FBI coins, ruining fungibility, taking dormant coins and the like need to have the people who suggest them implement them so we can put the ideas to bed once and for all.

+1.   Sounds about right.

It sounds to me like you are saying: if "coins" (abstracting away the underlying details of scripts, inputs, outputs etc) are dormant for a period of time, then the "coins" are redistributed to someone else.  E.g. miners or people with transactions in the block.  So if the "coins" hadn't been moved in say, 210,000 blocks (roughly 4 years although somewhat less in practice), the coins would be redistributed on top of the fees for the following block.

The concept has been discussed before, and if you implemented such a scheme (however you did it from a technical level), you would be forking bitcoin, both the software and the blockchain itself. You'd end up with an alt-coin of some type.  If you were implementing it with bitcoin everyone would have coins on both sides of the fork.

Some people might like this alt-coin and switch completely to it selling their original coins on the bitcoin side, some people might not care and keep their coins in bitcoin and the new alt-coin, and some people might hate the alt-coin and sell all the coins on the new alt-coin and trade them for bitcoins.  Some would not doubt be a mixture.

You have to ask yourself: which coin would I want if it were me?  Would you want a coin that if I forgot to move the coins every 4 years (or 8 or 2 or ...) would take them or would you want a coin that kept them safe until you wanted them?   Obviously for the technically minded, it would be easy to set up something to just move your coins every year and avoid the issue, so who would be impacted?  The non-technically minded people most likely who would think, "oh, I'll move the coins every year or so" and then forget and have their alt-coin taken. 

So from a policy standpoint, it seems unlikely that people would switch to this coin.  There is a possibility they might use it for some purpose, but I think that many people would not use it in practice.

You could always implement the idea and put it to the test to see what happens in reality with adoption.  It would be an interesting experiment to see in practice. 

He may be, but the program itself is what I was speaking about. They've been doing it for 30+ years and the real estate on st kitts is comparably priced with other islands in the Caribbean, so you have some indication of the value there. 

The bitcoin and passports thing is a separate issue. :-)

The nice thing with the St Kitts program is you spend the $400k to buy real estate and you can sell it again in 5 years so you are essentially investing in real estate there which may appreciate, or at least won't lose all its value and then you can get it back later.  So if you don't mind having your money tied up for 5 years, it is a good deal.  IF you are looking for that kind of thing. 

My calc three/stats teacher stated it as:

A lottery is a tax levied on the innumerate.

:-)