The author, Jeffrey Tucker, is a very strong Bitcoin supporter and himself one of the paragons of the Libertarian powers that be, one of Ron Paul's inner circle, Mises Institute, and a long list of credentials.  He is a powerful personality in his own right.  He was Master of Ceremonies at the Libertopia festival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Tucker

He correctly identifies some of the "wise founder's" early influences with Napster and Liberty Dollar. 

Though with the Liberty Dollar trial still pending, I am not sure whether making this connection, true as it may be, is a good thing for the disposition of that case, though I was touched by his opening paraphrasing of Bob Dylan's "I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine" with Bernard as the Saint.

Kudos to Mr Tucker.

Allow me to articulate and explain why I support her.

I've met her, I've seen her work.  She is effective, intelligent, personable, a great communicator, has a passion and energy and understanding of what it takes to get things done (not just talk about doing them) and would be a great representative.  I would be happy to see her do this if it is something she wants to do.  The foundation would be enhanced greatly by her presence, and lucky to have her.

I could go on.

Do regulations make it more legal or less legal? (the list is inconsistent on this treatment, some places regulation is praised, some places it is condemned)

Everywhere there are laws, there are illegal things you can do with bitcoins, there are also legal things you can do with them.

To say Bitcoin itself is illegal would be only geographies that have classified it as "contraband" (seize it regardless of any action or intent).  That would put it in the same category as illegal drugs, child pornography, or bibles (in some places).

SO... No where on the planet is Bitcoin illegal, nor is it likely to ever be.

Either green up the map, or change the categories to match the way that laws work.  (Regulated, unregulated, taxable, etc)

Appreciate your checking in.  Good luck with your efforts.

Simply put, talking about banning guns, increases gun sales.
You are talking about assault weapon bans.
Therefore you are contributing to increased gun sales by this activity,
and so this is contrary to your stated goal of reducing guns in your population.

...

Consider instead, advocating something that might reduce the desire for gun ownership, you mentioned the poverty issue, might that be an example?  I work with a number of charities (none of whom advocate guns and all which seek non-violent resolutions and health and well being).

More fundamentally, the use of THE LAW against others ought not be the first place one goes to resolve an issue.  Think of THE LAW as a gun, that is what backs it.  When you propose these laws, these bans, you are proposing using guns against your fellow country people in the mistaken belief that the end will justify the means, but the result is that you are going further from your own desired end.  The effort is ill-conceived, and it not only results in a worse circumstance, it does exactly what you are hoping to avoid, the use of guns to accomplish something.

Instead seek to obsolete the need for weapons, it is not only time better spent for you, the incremental steps are each rewarding such as helping the homeless and unfortunate, abused women or other charitable work.

Please explain why these facts are either not true in your mind, or why you think they are unimportant.
Try to avoid claiming that I have a belief that I have not offered.

I am not claiming that guns are good or bad or that I want them or don't, only that your mission is ill conceived and ill executed.

There may be some really great way to reduce the number of guns.  What you are doing is simply the opposite of that.  Add to this that you are doing it so poorly and one might easily conclude that you are the one that wants guns, not I.

If you were able to clear your mind, you might realize that by listening to those who question you instead of tossing it on your mental pile of "things people who like guns say", you can improve your rhetoric and have a chance of progressing your agenda instead of running it in the opposite direction.

Yes, and the "wanting of guns" is increased by the notion that a unified/federal restriction is advocated.  You are generating demand and creating gun buyers.  It is not your intended consequence, it is your unintended consequence.  It is also the single largest factor in gun sales growth.  You are responsible for more gun buying than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

You lost me there.  Who is "arming criminals with guns"?


I don't think you need a gun, and I am happy that you don't have one.  I do think you need the right to have one.  If anyone exercises that right and either miss-use it, or fails to secure it from violent criminals, I am happy for them to suffer the awesome power of THE LAW based on the circumstances of that failure.

Does that make me "gun-happy"?    

For what it is worth, I have more often heard the argument that the anti-2nd amendment stance is the single largest generator of gun-sales into the population so arguably your philosophy is what causes guns to be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are, rather than those you oppose and seek to disempower.  Feel welcome to check up on those stats, if you like.  Check out the relationship of google searches on "gun violence" (a term manufactured by gun control advocates) and "gun control" and correlate that with firearm sales spikes and troughs.

Where does that leave you but throwing stones from a glass house?
Your gun-control advocacy does not meet your own policy goal.  Please consider other more reasonable methods for achieving your goal.

Yes, in such a case, you would get much lower than 130. 
A large stop loss on real exchanges is what the day-traders and bots are sort of hoping to trigger...  if they can sell into the stop price, and trigger the big sell, they can then buy after the stop-loss triggered market-order selling is done (and any other stops that such selling may trigger) and then get cheap coins.

Thin markets are decent reasons not to have stop loss orders, but offering the option for folks to do it anyway may be in the best interests of the exchange from a pure trade-revenue perspective.  If they were trading their own exchange, then it would REALLY be in their best interests, though that would be inviting the SEC in a away that would best be avoided...

If you were that concerned about your well-being to take such measures as these, please consider whether a better place to start would be to less often pretend that you know what is best for everyone else.  Some people like to make decisions for themselves rather than have them made for them, even if you really do think it is for their own good.

One ought to take utmost care when using the awesome power of THE LAW against our fellow humans.  That power, which the state holds, has the power to impoverish, to expose, to mute, to indefinitely detain, to torture, to slay and to wage war; ought be kept in reserve whenever possible.  It is too easy to be wrong, and too hard to undo.

In all likelihood, with security measures, the later you are, the more opportunity you have to put in additional security measures.

I suspect that there are techniques in development today, that won't be commercially available by the time this is released, but may be available by the time the 2014's come out.

Whether one avails oneself of ALL those new opportunities for defense of tamper-proofing is another matter.  Some but not all of them are in the sticker itself, some require other objects or processes that are not apparent to the folks buying them.  It is hubris to imagine that any of us alone know every possible thing about security, from the type of glue used to the thickness and fragility of the hologram to the means of securing and affixing it...

Arguing among ourselves is less productive to good security than working together.  It might make sense for those of us involved in coin-making to form a private group for improving the state of the art and cooperate a bit more, provided we can "play well with others". 

The Liberty Dollar's Warehouse Receipts had the most advanced security of its time.  More than any paper currency of any nation at that time.  It had holograms, microprinting, UV fluorescent ink trim, hot gold and silver foil stamping, and an invisible synthetic DNA security thread, and were also a work of artistic beauty 100% backed by bullion.  They were harder to counterfeit than US Fed Reserve Notes and far and away the best paper money in existance, but, if done today, there is more that could be done.  The state-of-the-art is always changing and it takes more than a little work to keep informed of all of the new developments.

YAY!  More physical coins.    I love it.

If you can accept some friendly advice from someone that does coin designs, minting and manufacturing and has studied numismatics for 40 years, your submission requirements are going to limit the result unnecessarily.  There are a lot of things that are being missed here.  By using a BW -> CADCAM -> CNC input with no gradation in the die-cutting, The end result will be sharp and angular rather than topographically organic, mechanical rather than soothing and friendly.

This is fine for a collectible medallion that is stored in a box or bureau, but sharp things on coins in pockets, purses and wallets tend to cut them and wear on them. The last thing someone wants is a coin that cuts a hole in their pocket and escapes.

There are also many other features that the submission spec prevents.  There are gradations in frosting with everything from mirror finish to a non-reflective frost, edge lettering, dished fields, and also avoids some of the advanced techniques to prevent the tamper-evident hacking displayed at the last DefCon against the Casascius pieces.

The very best coins these days are sculpted and 3d digitized rather than computer derived, though the computer design is a great way to sort through a bunch of ideas.

I look forward to an amazing result in any case, and wish you the best of luck with it.

Makes sense generally, though Bitcoin price is more rigid downward than upward.

I like it.  Flip the switch and everything shifts to Bitcoin.  Nicely done.  It needs a BTC symbol between the ( ) in the Bitcoin dropdown selector, but still great.
Now... about you carrying more private minting such as the Bitcoin Silver COLD HARD CASH and New Liberty Dollars instead of so many of the government minted items?? 

I got lucky.  I got a kid that is kind, with a sense of humor and fun to be around.  He schooled me on why not to be a leaver before he would let me play with him.    He is taller than his mother already so I give him lots of responsibility which he tends to handle pretty well.

He also taught a bunch of his gamer middle school friends how to mine litecoin.  Lately he has be hosting a garry's mod server, and has been asking me to punch holes in the firewalls for some of his other hosting endeavors.  He takes piano, trumpet, French, acting, Aikido and Java programming classes after school so unless I do something he is interested in, I don't get much time with him.  Games make getting that time with him easy.

Everyone has to start somewhere but one is not a very good number to get, you pay more and also then you will be unlikely to spend it, and that is what it is made to do, circulate...   

I am hoping to meet some folks that can take a lot of them.  Then I can send others to them that just want a few and they won't have to pay the burdensome shipping and delay from the US.  The thing about the physical pieces, they are best for in-person transactions and so help to build a community of folks around you that are also more resilient to economic shenanigans by TPTB.

Do we have a guess on the number of attendees?

I'd like to bring some minted goods and am pondering the quantity.

A nice addition for the wall hall of fame.

I read it differently, as suggesting that the government has Münchhausen, and so is gaining power by amplifying the problems so that it can have the authority to take charge of those problems based on the rewards it gains from that...  But I can't say if its the author's intent, or what is meant by "real" in the passage that follows it.

I'm no conspiracy buff, but wouldn't a more simple/plausible conspiracy be that they just let one off the leash, so that they could then ask congress for more budget/power/authority/surveillance?