It doesn't have to be a competing forum.  A co-operating forum would be valuable.

As Ubuntu is to Debian, a Bitcoin Business forum could be to Bitcoin.org.  I love this site for what it is, but the characters around here, including myself, may be off-putting to cautious business people unaccustomed to open forums.

They'd probably prefer a heavily-moderated forum in which one is polite, helpful, and accurate or does not post/gets edited.

We have no idea whether that pizza was the nail in the horseshoe that didn't go missing.

Maybe if we went back in time and saved those purchases, BTC wld have peaked and fizzled already.

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/columns/20402-mobile-operator-integrate-Bitcoin-cryptocurrency.html

If this is true, then Callooh! Callay! WE'RE HERE TO STAY!

EDIT: I think this may just have been parsing of This Week in Startups.  I'm not sure whether the author of this article had additional data.

Welcome aboard the Bitcoin community.  There have been a few scammers thinking they could take advantage, and recently they've been right a couple of times, so you can understand the initial skepticism.

After you get through the trial-by-fire, I wish you the best of luck with your business.  Bitcoin Entrepreneurs are going to make this economy.

You might be able to sell FLOPS for Bitcoin.

You could set up a seperate server that specifies problem format and accepts Bitcoins and the problem.  Sneakernet it over to your CPU.
Bit of a hassle, though.

Greece.  That's where I'd be setting up a Bitcoin exchange if I were a native.

Afternurner has !000% proven it in MATHEMATICL FORMULAS, LMGTFY!!

THe moon is turning constantly, but you DON NOT understand human psychologia.  That is why you will FAIL...

It's reasonably possible to orchestrate a bank run day with Bitcoin banks.  It could happen every February third.
Banks could protect themselves in their contracts by charging for high liquidity.  If you wish to withdraw more than 50% of your savings, you must give 30 days warning or pay a penalty, for example.

A bank can provide valuable services in return for the fees or hassles.  I might bank with a Bitcoin banker who; launders my Bitcoins, provides Biometric security access (blood, hashed SNPs?), and has branches or deals with other Bankers around the world.

It's an interesting point.  Maybe some miners will restrict themselves to coins which they consider "hot" e.g. younger than X blocks and expect lower fees or (maybe?) expect that they can optimise their hasher for upcoming transactions, while archivers may charge higher fees or experience less pressure in the processor department while profiting from providing access to a longer history of the block chain.

I think this might be a form of miner speciation, separating the quick agile aggressive piranha-miner fighting for the most recent tranactions from the slow long-memoried whale-miner filter feeding through the older or lower priority transactions.

This of course requires a sufficient increase in the profitability of mining to begin the whole competitive and co-operative industry.

If an investor has a track record of investigating his investments and deriving Bitcoin profits from them, I might be interested in lending him Bitcoins in return for more Bitcoins after a specific date.  Naturally, the Bitcoins would be inaccessible to me while they are being used.

If I wish for someone to expend effort storing my Bitcoins securely, and make them available to me via a trusted ID system, it's reasonable that I pay for this.  One way I can pay for this is to allow some of my Bitcoins (any arbitrary percentage) to be used in investment by said entity, along with the explicit statement of repayments, inaccessibility time, risk and guarantees.  Alternatively, I can simply pay a small percentage of the Bitcoins stored in fees.

As long as the system has reputation to be lost, shouldn't the market choose between different risk profiles?

Bitcoin has to use something to distribute the incentive.  "Satoshi" chose Hash/s, and that's pretty reasonable.  If you wanted to eliminated GPUs from the equation, you could probably write a Bitcoin clone (PersonCoin) that rewards based on an updated list of cost of resource (hash, storage, bandwidth etc.) that you believe optimised for an individual, and charge a tax for updating the list of standards.

I can't wait to see it!

Sure did, thank you.

Do miners feel that this it is desirable that such communication over the blockchain occur?  I don't particularly like it, since I would like Bitcoin to be the closest possible approximation to a transferable scarce commodity, and uses outside of this may be deleterious.  Unfortunately, as most Bitcoiners would probably agree, prohibition is often counterproductive.  In this case, it would be at least quite costly for each node to maintain a subscription to stenography blocking software, and the type of people who implement stenographic protocols will be dodgy people.

It would seem more desirable that this was, in effect, legalised and voluntarily regulated.
Some miners will be comfortable storing and receiving high-entropy transactions or providing access to long histories, while others simply want to process day-to-day Bitcoin purchases.  Some will require that if they are used for data comms they are allowed to delete transactions that are in violation of the data retention laws of their nation, while others will offer encrypted storage accessible over Tor. Is there any way that a supernode can advertise to the client?  If so, a protocol would allow the client to select between miner rulepools optimising for transaction volume, entropy, services offered (1 large pool-based laundering with higher fees is potentially more efficient, with individual higher feed launder specialists), etc.

The incentives facing both miners and Bitcoiners are multifaceted.

Is this true?
I saw some people talking about how might happen and then a day later later this is in the news.  I'd like to see corroborating evidence.

It's a  plutocracy if it is rule by wealth.  It's a plutarchy if it is rule by a wealthy oligarchy.  I originally thought up this idea to poll wealthy Bitcoiners to see what kinds of services they would like to see provided in exchange for their succulent delicious Bitoins, but more relevant is how the majority of Bitcoins would like to be used.
Not necessarily.  I might only be interested in an Entity (person, group of people agreeing to make a statement with their money en masse, or trading system providing proof of wealth) that is willing to dispose of 1000 BTC to make a point.
But a fee for entropy is almost necessary, or optionally a fee per KBTC if you wish to make the fees proportionate across wealth strata is reasonable.  The point is that polls can be carried out with easily configurable necessary conditions for voting depending on the group being addressed.
An identity chain of a minimum number of Bitcoins voting similarly through block chain history is one potential requirement.
Thank you.

While this inevitable development is potentially dangerous, it is also potentially extremely useful.  A web of trust built directly on top of the Bitcoin network could be extremely valuable, especially if one is performing a transaction of value significantly less than the value invested in cultivating the Entity.

Pff.  No it isn't.  If you offered most people here 100,000 USD worth of Bitcoins or 50,000 USD worth of Gold and 50,000 worth of Bitcoins, I bet they'd take the diversified risk.

There are simply 10,000 (or whatever) people who have sufficient faith in Bitcoin to make it part of their personal economic decisions.

It does a little, doesn't it?

Especially since it can also be used for trade which I consider immoral.

Bitcoin addresses can be used as chains of identity for a statement (willingness to carry out violence in exchange for Bitcoins being about the only thing I consider an immoral use) and therefor reputation for success, as well as reputation for paying.

Entire protocols for codified human behaviour are going to be pegged to pseudonymous entities moving Bitcoins as proof of identity and writing "end use as identity" bytes when spending them.

On the other hand, manufactures can establish reputations based on data encoded on the block chain, and capital for purchase can be demonstrated.  This could be extremely valuable for just-in-time manufacturing and escrow carried entirely along the block chain.

This is going to be used whenever a Bitcoin identity, whether that be a person, group of opinions, or trading software wishes to signal with its financial reputation.  It is almost the purest expression of humanity.

I really think charge-per-entropy rulesets are a necessity.

The ability to select rulesets now would be nice, since it would allow us to choose between free pools and non-free pools with reasonable estimates of time-til-confirmation.

Unfortunately, it's easier said than done, so unless people are willing to pony up the Bitcoins now to incentivise and empower Gavin et al., I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.

I really see your point afterburner.
We would very much like to spread exponentially.  I am working on a free website that uses Bitcoins, but it is difficult, since I'm not a professional programmer and am busy with working at getting the old money I need to live and get enough Bitcoins to start up the website.

The best thing we can do is spread the increase usefulness of Bitcoin.  I agree that it's risky to invest in the Bitcoin economy, but I like to take risks occasionally, and my estimation of the potential usefulness of Bitcoin makes it worthwhile to me.  Does it to you?

While I don't particularly like the conclusion, I understand the argument.

Does it not come back down to the market?  If I understand it correctly, miners will eventually produce diverse rulesets for the trades they are willing to process and the fees they will be charging.

If it becomes an issue, the client can integrate a feature which allows choice between ruleset pools upon transaction.  Miners can switch between ruleset pools as they please.

I've had a horribly interesting idea.

We know we can encode data steganographically, but that it's not nice to do too much.
In order to poll the Bitcoin community, we could use as little as one byte of data to choose between a list of option.  I'm sure more entropy then that would be added for identification of the message, but only messages which paid a minimum miner's fee decided by the polling body would be part of the polling body's analysis.

Each Satoshi moved is considered one vote.  The meaning of the encoded data could be a simple public statement or encrypted hashes of one's answer signed by the public key of the voter.
This would allow an entity to get reactions from the Bitcoin community proportional to the number Bitcoins held by an opinion.

This could be extremely valuable for finding out what Bitcoins would like to be spent on or used for, and participation would almost necessarily be voluntary and non-binding.  The only possible punishment for a dishonest answer (initiating transaction in public and then reneging) is a slight devaluation of your Bitcoins amongst the other large Bitcoin holders.

On the one hand, I don't particularly like steganography in the block chain, but this is such a potentially powerful tool that I think it is going to happen.