The Ecuador government could implement a similar deadline as the EU did with the various local currencies. It could mandate that their citizens start to use their crypto coin starting on a certain date. Citizens could have a grace period as to when both the US dollar and their currency would be accepted.

With all that being said, IMO this is very unlikely because the dollar is accepted almost anywhere in the world and has a much more stable value then bitcoin does.

I would doubt he would have lost his password as he does not seem like someone who would make this kind of mistake.

I wouldn't doubt that he somewhat monitors this forum for developments regarding bitcoin. And I would certainly say that he monitors bitcoin related news.

He is almost certainly not helping release any of the alt coins that are out there as most of them (really all of them) are just stupid.

The argentina peso is already more or less pegged to the dollar on the government sanctioned currency exchanges. The most likely scenario is that Argentina would have a much higher adoption rate of bitcoin then the rest of the world. The government of Argentina is unlikely to give up control of their currency as they are more or less a deadbeat government (has a history of defaulting on their obligations). 

This sounds a lot like FUD to me. Most of what the OP is describing is already possible today with a few important details. It is not possible to decrypt an encrypted message without the private key that is to be used to decrypt the message. TOR uses encryption to access the entry guards so if you were to connect to TOR all that anyone would see be able to see is the fact that you are connecting to TOR. The same applies to signed messages that are not encrypted. If you sign a message using crypto technology and the message is somehow altered then the signature would not match the message and would not be accepted.

From what I can tell from news reports, most of the places that the ISIS has under it's control are more rural areas, and a lot of what they have under their control are the mountains in Iraq. It may make some level of sense for people in the major cities in Iraq to buy bitcoin prior to the ISIS taking over where they live.

If he already knew about bitcoin then your impact was likely very small, but you rather just confirmed that he knows about bitcoin. If a lot of customers were asking about your store accepting bitcoin then it would be a different story.

Even if you are young and have a long time to recoup your potential early losses, putting your eggs in one basket is still a very bad idea. The money that you invest early in your life will grow the most by the time you retire in 50-60 years as it will have the most time to grow.

3 BTC is only ~$1,500 with BTC trading at $500/BTC. I don't think that advertisers would likely have massive amounts of BTC on that site (or on any site). Another important note is that the site is likely not able to generate even market rates for ads as it likely generates very low quality traffic and much of the traffic is likely from repeat visitors.

For most small miners this is more of less true. However if you are able to invest a much larger amount into your mining operation then you may be able to get the manufacturers to ship you your miners much earlier then others as if they wouldn't they would lose out on a very big sale.

I think panic selling by people on Chinese exchanges realizing that their bitcoin in their account is not backed by anything would cause a much larger drop in price. Look at what happened on Gox when it was clear that they did not have BTC to back their trading positions; the price fell as low as ~150/BTC when other exchanges were trading ~700-800/btc. If this was panic selling like this then we would see a much larger drop (IMO) and there would be a much larger divergence in the prices on various exchanges.

This is really not true. America's industrial economy allowed it to be as prosperous as it is today. Since the industrial revolution technology has also helped the US's economy grow and prosper (the technology sector). Fiat has simply been what trade in the US economy has been done it. If trade was done in some other way then it would not have effected as to how big the US economy has grown to become, as long as the method of trade is something that is widely accepted and easily spent.

What the ex-im bank does is reduce counter-party risk for American companies. If for example a foreign company wanted to buy $100 million dollars worth of light-bulbs from GE, then GE could use the ex-im bank to guarantee this payment while they are producing these light-bulbs. If GE's customer were to default then GE would still get paid and the light-bulbs would be given to the ex-im bank to sell or otherwise dispose of. In this situation, without the ex-im bank, GE would either need to take on more credit risk, produce a better light-bulb, charge less then the competition, or a combination of the three to be on a level playing field then it's competitors. If they did not then they would be at a disadvantage and would likely receive much fewer sales as a foreign company could buy the light-bulbs of a similar quality at a similar price on better terms from someone else. There is no way to use efficiency to solve this issue.

While this would technically allow you to "earn" BTC, I really don't think this would answer the spirit of the OP's question. Getting paid in BTC instead of fiat would likely actually decrease your total earnings, as they would only pay you in fiat and would "charge" you all of the expenses in paying you this way.

I would agree with the many people who have posted that signature campaigns are the best way to make BTC, as you will get paid for something that you would normally do for free.

Are you looking for something like futures? If so then you might as well use margin trading (it really is the same thing as trading futures, with only technical differences), which is allowed at btc-e and bitfinex. If you are looking for options then you can try updown.bt which allows binary options on a number of markets.

AFAIK facebook has rules against this. The most common use for facebook credits is for in-game purchases, and maybe for advertising (although I am not 100% sure on this). AFAIK if someone wants to sell something "inside" facebook, then they need to use facebook credits; if they want to use some other payment method then they can use their own website to sell their product on.

I would disagree that it should work this way. The social security administration obviously has administrative costs that would need to come out of total benefits paid. Social security has been setup very much like a pyramid scheme but this is a very bad way of doing it (only a liberal would think this is a good idea). The thing is that the population boom that we saw after WW2 when soldiers started to come home and a lot of people started to start families at roughly the same time was not sustainable and was not sustained. As a result we will (and are) having a concentrated number of people stopping paying FICA taxes and start taking social security benefits at the same time. A very major problem with having SS be a massive pyramid scheme is that the earth has limited resources and can only handle a limited number of people living on it at one time (based on things like ability to house people, ability to grow enough food, ability to produce energy, total water supply) so population growth cannot last forever. Social security should be setup so that the average person draw slightly less then total taxes paid over their career plus inflation in total benefits. Some people would obviously draw more because they last longer, and some people would draw less because they die at a young(ish) age.

I wouldn't say that they are so much a ponzi scheme, however they do sell mining capacity that is way overpriced. Their cost per GHs is well over what each GHs will likely earn over the 5 year period. Another thing that is very unfair to their customers is that they force customers to prepay for 5 years worth of electricity when they buy a contract, however after several months the hardware is likely to produce less BTC then the cost of the electricity will consume so their customers would be better off if they simply turned off the GHs after a certain time.

I think that the altcoin exchanges likely make a lot of money from coin voting "fees"....I really think that is almost a genius idea to have people "vote" to have additional coins supported on their exchanges with their money. I would think that it usually costs next to nothing to have an additional coin supported by the exchange and the exchange could protect themselves by mandating that a higher number of confirms is needed for coins that are less secure.

One of the major benefits of bitcoin is that it is, for all intensive purposes free to use (yes you have to pay very little to spend your money, but this is an insignificant amount). If you were to have to pay upwards of $0.34+ to send a TX (it would actually be much more as the nodes would need to send multiple letters to other nodes re: the TX, probably 100x as much) it would make much less sense to use bitcoin.

EDIT: today there are roughly 7k nodes on the network. If a node would have to send 7k letters each time a TX was sent then it would cost almost $2,400 per TX, and this is a lot more then the average TX size. What this would be good for is a way to save the US postal service.

I would also highly doubt that the dollar will collapse for the very same reasons. I would hope that other currencies like bitcoin would become more commonly use in trade, potentially to levels that would eclipse other major currencies. However it is very difficult to make huge impacts on levels of currency trade.