Yes just like Bin Laden, Hitler etc.

http://cellar.org/pictures/youngbinladen.jpg

But one can allways hope...

It could if you invested and owned lots of Bitcoins and want to make Bitcoins more attractive.

I would put in a buyorder for 50% now slightly below the current price.
Than wait atleast 1-2 weeks and see what happens.

The project rocks but how will you get btc with fiat currency if the exchange is decentralised?

If we are talking mainstream.

When price is stable.
When Bitcoins are legal?

Most average people probably dont want their online wallet to become illegal or to suddenly drop 10-50% in value.

Next year Visa will launch V.me

Its similar as a payment solution in that it allows you to buy without giving away your details and make it simple.

Daopay is a simple way to use you mobile to pay.
http://www.daopay.com/

What kind of impact will these have on the value of Bitcoins?

Why should avarage joe really care about Bitcoins next year when he/she could use a simple solution from another company such as Visa/google etc.

Kul, kan du scanna och  lägga upp någonstans?

The only real problem was not only powering the pumps.
The real problems are how the whole industry works. It does not work, and its all over the world it does not really work.
Problems are ignored and silenced down in Russia, India and all over the world.

This is how it works, or does not work in the US:

http://vimeo.com/29929825


They knew about the problem in Japan.

"Japan earthquake: Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables show
Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8384059/Japan-earthquake-Japan-warned-over-nuclear-plants-WikiLeaks-cables-show.html

But they chose not to correct them because they thought such event could not happen...

Here is a good lecture about unexpected dangers and why they do happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQmwEjL6K1U

These unexpected "impossible" events happen all the time.
In Sweden they recently discovered that jellyfish could clog the water intake leading to a meltdown.

The US three mile island that almost lead to a meltdown was caused by a worker using a candle, since the light was out.

Recently a fire happened in a Swedish nuclear plant...Because a vacum cleaner turned on started burning. This could lead to smoke being released...

Workers could suddenly get stomach sick because of food poisening. There are millions of unexpected events that can occur and sometimes two or more of these happens at the same time and things go really wrong.

In US powerplants are built close to earthquakes epicentra.
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/23/virginia-earthquake-epicenter-close-to-nuclear-power-plant.html

"On NBC News, Jim Norvelle of Dominion Power said the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes of magnitude 5.9 to 6.1. As noted earlier by Rob, this earthquake was initially reported as a 5.9, so... that's not too comforting."

In India nuclear powerplants are being built in one of the world worst earthquake zones.

The government is planning to build the world’s largest nuclear power plant in Jaitapur, on the west coast of India, in Maharashtra.  The site is an ecological and biodiversity ‘hotspot’ that's also known to have high seismic activity. The plan is an untested, expensive and dangerous gamble with health and land, which is being vehemently opposed.

http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/What-We-Do/Nuclear-Unsafe/Nuclear-Power-in-India/Jaitapur-nuclear-power-plant/


Here are other political problems with security of nuclear power plants:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/06/09/after-fukushima-wikileaks-points-to-the-disasters-waiting-to-happen/

Other problems is that often several plants are built next to eachother. If one explodes has a meltdown it could get impossible to stay in the area meaning that the others can also melt.


One must be utterly naive to think there is such a thing as safe nuclear power.
In theory on drawing table yes. Not in reality.

Example:

27-1956: US plane crashes into nuclear ammunition storage in the UK


There is a reason that Germany decided to close and not build any more powerplants.


Fact is, that there has been close to meltdowns on several occasions.

Only this year France had one quite serious accident, Sweden 2 accidents, USA 2 serious situations.

Here are some more...

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml


2006 Sweden:

The culprit was as simple as it was troubling: a short-circuit. But that short-circuit caused an electricity failure that nearly led to catastrophe at Sweden's Forsmark 1 nuclear reactor.
Nearly two weeks ago, around noon on July 25, a power outage occured at Forsmark, throwing the plant's control room into a state of chaos. As the power failed, so did two of the plant's four emergency backup generators. The numbers on the controls started to go berserk, and it took a full 23 minutes before the workers, who for a time had no idea what was happening inside the reactor, were able to bring Forsmark 1 back under control.

1986, 1992 and 2004 Germany
They included a power failure at Germany's Biblis B nuclear reactor on Feb. 8, 2004. "And that was just because the weather was bad and there was a short in the power line," he recalled. Less than a decade earlier, in 1986, lightning disrupted operations at the plant. And in 1992, at a plant in Philippsburg, Germany, a defective electrical component caused an incident that had similarities with the July 25 incident in Sweden.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,430458,00.html

Another impressive list:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

Sorry for this long post. But the more you study and learn the more you understand that there is no such thing as safe nuclear power.

Yes, it really needs some an attention grabbing and selling headline.

How can I use Bitcoins

Its no good. Since it does not communicate why a user should get involved with Bitcoins and does not arouse curriosity.
It sounds to boring.

Its a great headline to use once a prospect is allready interested in Bitcoins.

You should also speak to your subject as in.

How you can use Bitcoins.

Me? Yes you...
(How can I, is not as effective as you since it sound a little like you are speaking about yourself.)

Its allready better. But still not good enough.

Even better would perhaps be.

Why you will use Bitcoins

Now, this one just forces you to watch the content.
What do they mean? I´m not going to use bitcoins...What are they talking about...

Or

Why you will love Bitcoins

Here you have an emotional word, we imply that they will not only use them, but also love using them.

Though, since once you click play you have a much better headline/ start of the video.

Whats so great about Bitcoins

This one makes you much more curious.

If possible make something like that the headline.

Here is some good advice.
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/06/29/five-copywriting-errors-that-can-ruin-a-company-website/

And here are some more.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/types-of-propaganda-techniques.html

You might also want to get a copy of some good books such as
Tested advertising methods and read it.
(Recommended by John caples.)

Though if you get that book, take some advices with a pinch of salt.
Such as the preference for long texts, people are much more stressed today.
Short messages gets more readers on the web.

Also images are very important...

Police in East China's Shandong Province announced Wednesday that they have cracked two illegal organ-transplant clinics, arresting 18 people involved.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/681152/Police-crack-underground-organ-trade-criminal-ring.aspx

Wikipedia Organ trader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade

You dont allways have to tie them to a person or entity, its enought to tie them to a crime to taint the adress they are at and maybe any adresses they go to.

One problem though is speed, it has to go quite quick? What happens when it goes to slow...Before an adress is tainted, the coins are allready moved into an exchange and ends up spread to other users.

Should those user be asked to send the coins back otherwise their adresses will be tainted? Thinking about it, its not reasonable...

So this tainting system should perhaps only be there to prevent crimes such as extortion and kidnapping from being based on Bitcoins, because in both cases you will be able to know in advance that a certain adress will contain tainted money.

Ofcourse a kidnapper could allways threaten that the adress should not be tainted or else.
But in these case I see governments cooperating with exchanges and warning them of the adress without tainting it.
Though thinking further would not be possible since he could send the coins to a new adress, exchange them at an exchange and claim that he bought the coins from someone unknown etc.


Thinking about the speed...

Thats where whitelisted adresses comes in, or known adresses.

Exchanges will have to only accept coins with zero day delay from whitelisted adresses. 
Any unknown adress will have to be in quarantine waiting to be aknowledged for say 3 weeks depending on country, so that its not money from a serious crime.

Some poker networks have these kinds of quarantine when withdrawing funds.

This will also force real users to rather use and keep their coins at whitelisted adresses.
An adress will probably be "whitelisted" just by doing a verification at any of the exchanges.

 

You need a great design, something that makes people go wow and for that, the material is important but so is the design and they need to go hand in hand.

Scary, I had the exact same thinking and idea...

I was going to post this on my new blog.

But have not had the time to finish it.

The biggest obstacle with Bitcoins for mass adoptation is the anonymity.

Yes cash is also anonymous, but unlike cash, Bitcoins can be transfered
from an anonymous source to another anonymous source.

With physical cash you have to transfer it in the real world.
An analogy to this would be that its almost the same as if you could teleport real cash to anywhere in the world.

But only the person recieving the cash knows where.



This means that bitcoins are perfect for certain types of crime.
Especially kidnapping comes to my mind, since it solves an old problem with kidnapping.

How will you get the ransom without anyone following you.

With physical cash a kidnapper needs to pick them up at a physical location
which makes it almost impossible for the kidnapper to know that its safe to pickup
the ransom.

Because a bank transfer would be traceable.

So for the first time in history a kidnapper can now kidnapp someone and get the ransome
and get away with it.

Unless you are really naive, its obvious that its going to start a new crime trends such as kidnapping and extortion as we are getting more and more poor and desperate people.




But.


What will happen the day that someone kidnaps a cute kid and ask for the ransom to be paid in Bitcoins?

This becomes something HUGE in the NEWS. The Bitcoin kidnapper, and its going to be reported all over the world.

There will be heated debates and a majority of the opinion will turn against Bitcoins and similar anonymous cryptocurrencies and rightfully blame them for making it possible to ask for anonymous ransomes.

The day this happens, Bitcoins will be abandoned and boycotted by many normal investors, business and normal persons.
No "serious" business will want to be associated with this currency.

If/when it happens its also likely that soon after, just like US blocks pokersites, they will block bitcoin sites and make it illegal to trade with Bitcoins.

European and Asian countries will follow

This would have a huge impact on the price of Bitcoins and nearly destroy them as people panic sell as the value drops, only very few wanting to buy.

I can even see how the people working on Bitcoin will be grilled and held responsible in TV shows.
Recieve hatemails from angry mothers and have to go out and say they were naive and Bitcoin was not meant for these things to happen and that they have stopped working on it or are working on a solution.

Unless there allready is a hidden solution. If there is and the kidnapper is caught, than Bitcoin will be the hero.

Otherwise there will be made a new non anonymous cryptocurrency, if possible will step up and take Bitcoins place to become the world online currency or Bitcoins will be illegal or regulated in most countries in the world.

Bitcoins will still have a place in black markets etc but it will never get legal in US and EU unless there is a way to blacklist adresses.

Even if its possible to trace Bitcoins its enough that a single crazy person think its impossible to trace them and kidnap a kid and ask for Ransome to get the public opinion to hate the coins.


Maybe there acctually needs to be some way in the client or in a cryptocurrency to mark the money legit or illegal.

All there needs to be is a way for clients to check if an adress that money comes from has a message
on a site. Saying that the adress is a illegal adress.

The question than would be by who? Governments/police or exchange services or all of them?

The public and the forum people cannot do this and especially not the software coders.
Since this could open up to blackmailing, mob behaviour etc, unless you pay us, we will taint your adress etc.

And how will this work in a world?

I think that governments will simply cooperate.
The US will have one list, russia another but most exchanges will have to demand that all lists are clean.
There might be exchanges that dont demand clean lists, but you will probably get less money for your coins at those.

Whitelisted coins will allways be in a higher demand since you will be able to spend them anywhere in the world.

I would imagine it working like this.

The person will see the warning message associated with the adress.
The message could even be of different kinds depending on in which countries they are blacklisted.
If they are proved to be illegal or suspected to be illegal and what type of crime.

"Warning the coins in that adress are from a serious crime. Accepting them is a crime in US, EU etc list of countries."
Please send those coins back and report to us.

Or in another case.

"Warning the coins in that adress might be stolen, accepting them could be a crime in your country"


It will smear onto your adress unless you send them back.
This smearing would make it impossible to make a new adress that cleans the coins.


Would it even be possible? It probably would.

Most people dont know it, but there is something similar in the poker world.
Accounts and even persons do get fraud scores and these are traded among all the bigger poker sites since they collaborate by sharing info on this with services such as this.

http://www.volusion.com/merchant-account/credit-card-fraud-protection/

But the question remains.

Will the government bother with such trouble?

I dont think they will unless bitcoins are really big.
It will probably just be easier for them to outlaw Bitcoins.

They could "force" well somewhat force, by making it illegal to not do a check against their database to se if a bitcoin adress has some message or not.

Sites that does take money from blacklisted adresses will be taken down or shut out.

This will force people to use a client that can see those messages unless they dont care but that would mean that
they will not be able to use their coins on other than black markets.

If it would be possible, it could make stealing Bitcoins by hacking less interesting and especially kidnapping and asking for ransom.

What if the stolen Allinvains coins adress was marked as illegal?

It would have meant that when they tried to cash them out a MTGox they would not had been able to do so. MtGox would probably not have accepted those coins.

Saving Bitcoin from atleast one crash.

Their only option would have been to cash them out in the black market.
But at that market they would be worth much less.

I think that even most black markets would check the list.
They would be to curious to see why the coins are blacklisted, some would not accept certain types of coins.

This would also make it less attractive to acctually try and steal Bitcoins since their value would increase.

In the longterm it would probably also mean that you will have to whitelist you adress if you want to use the coins at any bigger company.

Question is if there will be greyzones.

Coins that are not whitelisted or blacklisted.

Thinking of it, it will probably end up with the governments blacklisting all the coins and adresses that are not whitelisted?
Go to the IRS and whitelist them.

I can only see that or all Bitcoins getting illegal in the longterm, but I´m taking longterm 10-20 years.


But the question is why should a government bother with having Bitcoins legal unless there are advantages.

I can only see this happen if the people demand Bitcoins, because they dont trust the government printing the money
and because it means banks cannot charge whatever fee they want.

If Bitcoins grow bigger the governments will deal with Bitcoins one way or the other.

The first thing they will do is ofcourse try to regulate the exchanges.
And after that there will more steps that follow.

What would Bitcoins getting legal mean?

Bitcoins getting legal will also mean that their value will increase, since
it would mean that they are here to stay and can be adapted by everyone.

It might still be possible to have anonymous adresses in some countries as long as they pay taxes
and there will probably be higher taxes on them.

I really like the concept of Bitcoin, with less power to the banks, and no government printing etc.

But the anonymity is going to be a huge obstacle for it no matter if we like it or not.

Has the $3 Floor Been Solidified?

Simple answer: No.

It can and its not unlikely that it will go below $3 and down to around $2 in the coming 2-3 months after which it might go further down below $2 google trends are not pointing up.

I dont think we will see any huge rallies to more than $4 since people still have in memory that it went from $4 and below quite quick,
not very long time ago.

But if it can hold around $2-4 a couple of months more I would call it a stable $3

Soon we have christmas and Newyear coming. How will it affect the price?
My guess is that many casual buyers will stop buying and caring about Bitcoin during that time instead putting money into other expenses.

But there will also be the oposite, people have time to play with Bitcoin during the holiday, question is which effect will be the stronger of the two.

Thats awesome. Because of the anonymous nature there will definitely be more of these.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442462/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLN6Dp1Gi-8

This can be solved in an instant by requiering the donor to fill in a email/name and phone number.
There you go. Not anonymous anymore.

So they mean that organizations that go out and ask for donations from people on the street should not take them because those people who give are anonymous? Are they kidding or do they not understand the foundation of independent organisations and donations?

It would be much better for them to get their money ONLY anonymously and here is why.

Case 1.

Lets say that google or apple would give them $millions for each year, during a few years.
That one or two single companies stand for 80% of their budget. They become dependent on these money since those are the money that payes their server costs etc.

Now this means they cannot mention any bad things about Apple/google/facebook, such as them using sweatshop workers or whatever because they now find themselves in a dependency situation.

Its almost like if Apple/google/facebook would bribe them.

Case 2

Even worse, lets say a mafia organisation or criminal individual gives them huge amounts of money non anonymously for a few years. Perhaps they dont even know yet that the person/organization is bad yet.

This buyes the mafia organisation good credibility and creates a dependency situation for wikipedia and associates them with this entity.
It also means that they can no longer take those well used money once this organisation is revealed to be a bad one and that their wikipedia name is dragged in the dust.

If they would they can no longer claim to be independent since they accepted/accepts donations from this entity.

What if Usama Bin Ladin was one of their biggest donators before or during the attack? How would that affect their brand?
Or lets say they were an old organization and Hitler was revealed to be one of their founding donators?

However if the donations was only given anonymously they could allways claim to be independent!
Since they would never know who give them money.

So another problem with not accepting anonymous money is that this acctually gives them the problem of having to turn down money from
certain organisations just to be able to claim that they are independent.

Acctually they should turn down money from non anonymous persons and companies etc just to be able to be trustworthy.
This means that they will get less money and be able to do less good. Not improving the world as much as they could.

This in fact is very important for a organization that wants to claim that we should trust their information to not be biased or censored.

So the truth is that its acctually way better for a independent media company to get anonymous donations, since this free them from any suspicion of dependency and links both now, in the future and in the past.
And it means that we can trust them to be as independent as possible and they are free to write what ever they want.

The fact is that they should preferably ONLY accept anonymous donations for the sake of independency.

I would say this.

Do not trust a media organisation that do not ONLY accept anonymous donations.

And if they still dont want anonymous money, they can simply ask for name and id number but they are not trustworthy anymore.

So this decision from wikipedia to not accept Bitcoins makes them not trustworthy anymore.

They cannot claim to be an independent trustable organisation until they only get anonymous donations such as Bitcoins or cash.

I know this has been posted before, but its amazing how close the Bitcoin price follows the google trends.

I think there are a couple of conclusions to be drawn from this but I would like to hear what you think.

Bitcoin is not company owned, its not owned by any government, its owned by me you and everyone.
This means there is noone who can or will collect your shopping information.
Which both VISA and Mastercard recently was revealed to do.

Bitcoin is freedom.


When paypal froze Occupy Wallstreet, they used bitcoin.
Paypal froze diaspora the free facebook alternative.
They now have bitcoin.

Also mention its spreading all over the world. That china have two exchanges.

Very very valid points.

All of which must be solved.

My impression is that the new Green adress used by instawallet and MTGox solve the instant transaction somewhat
and it will be used by more.