Whether a title is 'bad' or not is a subjective opinion, not a fact.


Only by yourself, who held such an opinion.


It was literally impossible for me to have acted quickly enough to have satisfied you. 


If I agreed that I had done something wrong, I would apologize for it.  I simply changed to title to reflect my impressions of the thread as concisely as I could think of.  And I still believe that it was an accurate assessment of your perspectives, even if you never literally said as much.

I doubt you could create a thread title that would upset me, that wouldn't get deleted by some other mod first.  I would either refute the title, or ignore you.  It's not easy to upset me, so I can't really relate to those who are easily offended.

Okay, whatever Serge, I've lost interest in you.

I didn't make a judgement call based upon my personal disagreement with you, or anyone else.  I can think that you are full of crap and still not hold it against you.  I'm not emotionly invested in this thread even now, but you get one (factually supportable) 'hipocrite' and you're bent.  I hotlinked this tread into the staff/mod section hours ago, and no one has come to your defense.  I'm not entirely sure why you believe that you have a grievence, nor do I believe that the title that I chose misrepresents this thread.  This has been going on all day now, and you still have not offered an alternative title, nor apparently were willing (or able, perhaps) to get another mod to change/delete anything.

EDIT: Well, somebody did change the title, to a particularly relevant one at that.

Some have, but one of the reason that porn sites exist is to harvest credit card data, for the exact reason that some of the user's are unlikely to file charges against them for fear of their spouse finding out about it.  Instead, they will just close the account and pay the false charges.

Honestly, both porn and gambling exist as borderline socially acceptable enterprises online.  Would you trust your CC data (and thus your identity) to an anonymous online drug site, even if it claimed to be legit?

I thought it was implied, considering I assumed that you were responding to me.  If I was in error, I apologize for my arrogance.


This is actually backwards.  The rising purchausing power of a deflationary currency tends to suppress interest rates in the absence of fractional reserve lending.

You do not understand the 'post-global' economic history.


Just thought I might through that little bit in there to enlighten you. I've got many more.

There was no lending before fractional reserve banking?  There is much history that is going to have to be updated!  Even the Bible must have been mistranslated!

BTW, what you call a 'dollar', isn't.  It's a federal reserve bank note.  A 'dollar' is historicly, and legally, defined as a particular weight in pure silver.  Roughly a troy ounce.  A 'bit' was a silver coin cut into 8 pieces, which is why 'two bits' is a quarter.  The term 'dollar' was an American distortion of the word "Thaler" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler) and is still very much, legally, a reference to a silver coin.

For most, no.  The credit cards also have the advantage that consumers are used to the system, and thus demand that system from vendors.  Which is why vendors use credit cards despite hating them.  But Bitcoin doesn't need most, only some.  As it chips away at the online market share of PayPal and Visa, it will become ever less obscure to the common consumer, and savvy vendors are going to start offering discounts for bitcoin.  Success need not be defined by the destruction of credit card companies, and likely couldn't anyway.  The advantages of credit cards could literally be added to bitcoin by those same credit card companies, if they so choose.


Some will try, undoutedly.  But try to undercut Walmart.com without a high level of trust from an established customer base.


Why?  Do you send your CC data to vendors online that you wouldn't trust to deliver on their promise?  If so, why would you trust them with your CC data?  There is more criminal profit to be had from selling or using the list of customers' data than from taking your bitcoin purchause and never sending you anything.  This is also why Ebay has vendor feedback, because you can still be screwed by a trickster.  Keep extending your trust online when it's unwarranted, and eventually you are going to have a real consequence.  Perhaps you are always protected by your CC company, but if you're gulible enough, eventually they will drop you like any other insurance company.


Bitcoin is already a currency, what you ask for is a complete banking structure.  That will come, eventually, to whatever extent the market may demand.  As I mentioned, there is literally noting stopping Visa form issuing Bitcoin credit.


Not that I will present, but I'm sure that you could find enough for yourself if you thought about it for a minute.

Actually, EW doesn't explain anything.  It's just a pattern recongnition algo, really.  It's us humans that try to provide the explaining.

The 5000 years of history preceeding 1913 is a glaring contradiction to your premise here.  And even if not all 5000, the preceding 137 years of American experiences with a gold standard and two prior national banks certainly does.

See, this is a perfect example.  The term 'deflationary spiral' implies a negative feedback loop occurred, which was true on it's face.  But that same feedback loop would not have occured if not for the monetary intervention of the Federal Reserve, which officially exists to temper the ridgidity of the gold standard.  The depression of 1929-1930 occurred as a correction to the bubble of the 'roaring twenties', which was a bubble, in part, because of loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.  It then became "Great" because of misguided fiscal & trade policies of Congress, with the added bad luck of a concurrent famine known as the "dustbowl".  In short, if we were really on a gold standard (without fractional reserve lending to add 'flexibility') then the Great Depression wouldn't have been so great.

Bitcoin is not based upon irc, but there is a channel dedicated to announcing peer addresses so that a new client install can find peers in the network quickly and 'bootstrap' itself.  However, the current client uses several parrallel methods of doing this, so that it's not dependent upon the irc channel.

Visa is not a money.

I'm educated in both.  (Actually, I'm educated in Praxeology, Economics is a subset)  There is no such thing as an expert in either discipline, because they are both social sciences.  Trustworthy Economists don't call themselves "experts", other people do.  It's like the "guru" word among unix programmers, it's a title that you earn, not one you claim.

As the the question, "what do you think will motivate a consumer to use an irreversible method like Bitcoins to buy something online instead of their Visa card?" the answer is very simple.  Lower transaction fees over the Internet, and eventually merchant discounts.  Once upon a time, cash was cheaper than using a credit card, until the credit card companies got wise and started demanding vendors sign contracts to not advertise prices lower than the credit card prices.  This is why the dual price displays on gas pumps disappeared in the 1980's.  But you can still get a cash discount from such vendors on larger items, such as a new tv, if you know who it is in the store you have to talk to.  Online vendors, for the most part, don't sign such agreements; and even if they did, they could be undercut by another website selling the exact same products for bitcoin only.

Trying investing in Solidcoin, and you'll have a pretty good idea.

I'm actually laughing, now.  This is akin to some rich guy complaining about a cop who pulls him over for swerving, because he pays his salary.

Keep impuning my integrity, and see what kind of "justice" you get from the other mods.  I'm just going to watch.

The intent was sarcasm.

I'm regularly amused by members who do no comprehend Praxeology or Economics telling me how consumers should act.

Just because you have mentioned that you believe that you have been treated unfairly, does not make it so.  The principle in question is accountability.  If I deleted it, there would be no evidence either way.  I don't mind being questioned.

And there are few things that I'll censor you over faster than use of vulgar language on the publicly viewable sections of this forum.  Tread lightly.

Why don't you just ask another mod to delete the thread?  I going to leave it here as a matter of principle.