Yep he stopped the gold standard because of inflation and he knew investors would start were raping the US' stores of gold in exchange for dollars which would have crashed.  So he decided to let it float, inflation exploded after that but maybe not as much as it would have if the foreign investors cashed out.

WWII saw the opening of the Bretton Woods era in the world economy.  Where governments started to keep US dollars as reserve in place of gold or silver.  They trusted that the US wouldn't inflate it's currency (Hahahahha).  Richard Nixon put an end to that in the 70ies and we started to see massive inflation until the fed jumped the interest rates into the double digits.  We've been in a quasi bretton woods economy ever since, with some countries pegging to the US dollar.  Less and less as we go on because of the weakening dollar fewer countries want to peg their currencies to it.

I am using version 3.20.2 BETA

What I can't understand is, if the address is showing up in my wallet.dat file how could I not be receiving credit for the transaction?

I will try running it on a fresh install.

I brought my laptop to work today.

When did it do that?

Dollars are legal tender, which means if you are already indebted to somebody, they have to accept the dollars at at least face value, although they can accept older notes at above face value if they really want to. (And it's the same for other currencies in other countries)

casascius's proposition is exploiting is what is, in my opinion, a weakness in bitcoin as a currency, that they are not truly fungible. (And it is related to the fact that they haven't got true anonymity either.)

His proposal is to selectively value bitcoins generated from different difficulty eras at different rates for conversion to the new system. If bitcoins were truly fungible each would be indistinguishable from the other and this process would not be possible. There would be no question about devaluing the early adopters gold because gold would just be gold, wherever and whenever it was found. After it is all melted down in a big pot there is no new gold and old gold.

As a currency, quasi-fungibility is a weakness and he is proposing an exploit, what are we going to do about it?

can pegging work without holding reserves of the currency you are pegged to?

is this frowned upon or illegal?...... how does United States of America view other countires pegging to their currency?

and where can I find Infos regarding to Option 4?

I think this is a stretch.  The task was to find an economic definition that didn't rely on personal preference.  I proposed one that looked at expectation of significant price increases and significant accumulation, as opposed to saving which has an expectation of non-significant price increases.  To say this relies on "personal preferences" is only true if personal preferences encompass everything in the entire world, including economic predictions and warehouse inventory.  If a company accumulates more goo than another company, can you say that is somehow based on personal preferences?  Only in bizarro-world. 

If you are correct, the request for a definition was just a trick to show that personal preferences accompany everything in the world.  I think a more reasonable reading of the purpose for the request was to try to discredit the concept of hoarding as a descriptive term, saying that it was just a pejorative for saving.  I think what I have shown is that hoarding is not without merit as a descriptive term, and is not just a pejorative for "saving that I don't like" or "saving that society finds distasteful".  It is actually a distinct economic category that can be defined objectively, by looking at price expectations and extent of accumulation.  A plain reading of the request and my answers will reveal that this is the case. 

No, the distinction between saving and hoarding does not rely on statistic deviations away from the group average under the definition I proposed.  

It has to do with deviations away from the historical price averages.  

A hoarder accumulates because they expect price to increase significantly.  

A saver does not accumulate because they expect price to increase significantly over time.  Rather, a saver saves to preserve an asset for future use, and possibly to benefit from appreciation in the asset (but again, does not expect significant price increases, as defined statistically).    

Another element of hoarding (but one that does not necessarily distinguish it from saving) is that the hoarder accumulates a significant amount of the asset.  You can argue that this definition relies on personal preference but this is not the case.  You do not have to have a preference for the asset in order to hoard, you merely need to accumulate a significant amount of it, and do so because you expect that the price will increase significantly.  Measuring the deviation from the mean also does not mean the definition relies on society's collective preferences, society's average level of acquisition could be based on factors other than the collective preference of individuals for the asset, people could be accumulating ugly smelly icky pond goo, because they believe that it is a store of value.  One person could be accumulating a significant amount of ugly smelly icky pond goo, expecting that it will not merely be a store of value in the future, but actually increase in value significantly, i.e., the person could be hoarding.  

Personal preferences for an asset be correlated with the level of accumulation, but they are different measures.  The definition's reliance on level of accumulation is entirely agnostic as to people's preferences for the asset (or society's).  

The definition distinguishes saving from hoarding in an objective manner that does not rely on personal preference.  It looks at two objective measures that can both be analyzed using statistical tools (price increase expectation and level of accumulation).  

I hope people don't find this discussion too insanely technical or boring, I actually think it's pretty interesting, I had never thought about the distinctions between hoarding, speculating, and saving until today.  I do think, though, that I have met the task set forth.  Although I definitely would like to hear if anyone has any other arguments against what I proposed?

Except the factors don't look at personal preferences at all. 

Expectation of significant price increases certainly has nothing to do with preference.

And as to the first point, simply because preference might be correlated with amount of acquisition does not mean the two are measuring the same thing.

As the examples given above show, I may have little or no personal preference for an item, and accumulate a significant amount of it because of my expectation for future price increases, or tremendous personal preference for it, and accumulate an average amount of it because of an expectation of future price stability. 

The definition I gave is agnostic with respect to group or personal preference, although it may be correlated with it.  I am more likely to acquire significant amounts of things I personally prefer, but not guaranteed to, as is society as a whole. 

The definition is measuring two objective measures, the expectation of future price increases and the amount of acquisition, not the preference of the acquirer or of the society, which could be all over the map and diverge from personal (or collective) preferences. 

The task was to come up with a definition of hoarding that did not "rely on personal preference and is demonstrably different than 'saving'".   Task accomplished, no?