The point I was suggesting was that backing currency to something that wasn't integral to it has failed.

BTC will always need computers.  After all, the computers are what are doing the work, so why not give linkage between that work and BTC value?  Besides, it's really the consensus of computers that confirms BTC value anyway.  Without computers running the client, you cant confirm transactions, and so BTC instantly lose value without computers.

So, it seems fine to link the value of BTC to computers or GPUs because BTC can't even exist without them.  If we were to lose all computers, BTC value would go with it.  It's not like we're just gonna lose computers all of a sudden, and if we do, oh well, BTC wouldnt've worked anyway.

Actually,  I think too big of a company right now would be horrible for Bitcoin.  Watch them adopt it and eat up 50% of the market.

I think #1 issue is insurance.

But that's why there's manufacturing/selling/buying/donating cycle.  It's not like they'd have the same old crappy rigs and gpus for 5 years.

If guys with money = manipulator, there's no reason truth cant = jesus

Edit:  Ahhhhh!!!! Maybe you guys are right!   It's almost winter but Mt Gox Live looks exactly like the top of an upside-down snowcone!!  This guy's an asshole!!

So, here's a whimsical thought I had.

When the dollar was backed by gold, there was an inherent separation between the two.  Gold was still gold and paper was still paper.  How many of these currencies are still backed by gold?

Well, my idea involves the idea that you can back BTC with something tangible and integral to bitcoin itself while also recognizing that BTC is too young to be independent of the dollar.

The idea is to start a company that will sort of be like the BTC reserve (a fort knox of BTC?).  How many GPUs have fallen victim to mining?  How many NVIDIA cards are used that are worth far more in value than the hash rate they produce?  How many cheaper-model ATI cards are used that achieve few mining results at current difficulty?

People will be able to donate their used rigs or used/burnt out GPUs to this company.  Thus, the value of the total sum of material donated will play the largest role in backing BTC.  

I was also thinking this company can serve a triple role as a mining rig and GPU manufacturing company AND a mining pool in addition to being a reserve.  Here's what the model would look like:

1)  People donate rigs and GPUs to company
2)  Company either uses working parts or refabricates broken parts to create it's own massive mining rig
3)  Those who donate rigs and and gpus will be given a share in the pool
4)  As the company mines, those who donated will be given a proportional distribution of mined BTC
5)  The company can qualify legally as a business because they will also be manufacturing and selling gpus and rigs.  This creates a cycle      wherein consumers can continue purchasing new gpus/rigs and then donate them again for additional shares.
6)  As a business, the company will have a company value in USD.  This value is really what would determine BTC value.

This could be kinda cool since as this company grew, it could get an invitation for the stock market.  Then, everyone might want to come on board, and we might actually have enough interest/capital in the market to build a real economy off of it.

Edit:  This could also provide a way for BTC to be insured indirectly...

EVERYONE plays on the psychology of others.  I put up buy and sell walls too.  I simply don't have enough capital so the influence of my orders doesn't have nearly as much psychological impact on the market.  

What I'm saying is that the only difference between the guy or group of guys who place large bid/sell orders and everyone else is that they have capital and their bids/sells are noticed.  If you argue frequency, I'll argue back.  I sometimes adjust my bid/sells 10 times in an hour depending on market volatility, but far less (if at all) when volatility is low.  This reflects the movements of large bid/sells on mt. gox -- they are more frequent when volatility is high.

It's also kind of moot to talk about wanting to make people buy or sell bitcoins -- it ends up back at the money differential.  When there is a panic buy or sell, people buy and sell.  Every buy in a panic buy can be seen by others on Mt. Gox Live and it adds to the event psychology.  The only reason it isn't as likely to make the market move is because the majority of people have less money.  

But then again, the sum of all people with less money than the "manipulators" could also said to be manipulating the manipulators!  That's what happens in panic buys and sells.  Everyone buys or sells because they 1) Want to get in on the action and 2) Want the market to move in a certain direction.  This then 'manipulates' what the 'manipulator' does.  And, the reverse is true for the 'manipulators,' too -- 1) They want to get in on the action and 2) Want to make the market move in a certain direction.  And in that order.

It seems manipulators are simply guys with loot.  

Next you know, the 'manipulator' will be statistically random and everyone will panic and cry, "He's so ruthless!  Nobody can figure out what he's doing!  It appears his actions look like everyone else's!  He's a genius!"

I laugh it off because the name completely neglects any rational psychology.

It's not manipulation, it's trading.  I put up and remove bid and sell walls all the time too.  The only difference between me and them is that they have way more capital than I do. 

Still think I win twice.

lol nice

Ok, then I'll test your last sentence.

So, you'll give up the BTC readily if the world isn't as corrupt as you believe it to be?

Ok, well, let's take the concept of Freedom.

I will assume that if the people who you assume are affected by the banks are still free, then the world isn't so corrupt.  After all, if you're free, then you're not bound; not imprisoned by the powers of the banks.

But, the nature of freedom implies that something that is free can also set its own constraints.  If a person is free, they can be free to be not free.  And that may be in fact what is happening with the banks.  People choose to use banks.  Just because you're free doesn't mean you can't also be not free at the same time.

How corrupt can the world be if everyone/everything is free?  Even if it is corrupt, it was freedoms choice to be corrupt.

Look on the bright side...things aren't so bad.

That's great, but you can only assume their difference while simultaneously acknowledging their sameness.

Things can only be identified in contrast to what they are not, but this only implies what something is "not" is a determinant of its identity.  For example, an apple is only an apple because it's not, say, a banana.  Thus, an apple can only exist because bananas exist.  

Philosophy and logic allow for the safe resolution of paradoxes.  Take this example..."A barber posts a sign in front of his shop that states '
I will shave all those, and those who do not shave themselves.'  Does the barber shave himself?"  Most people would have a hard time reconciling this one...either the barber shaves himself or he does not.  But the correct answer is that he does both.

You can assume all you want in your argument, but the only way that you can be "right" is if you're simultaneously wrong.

Bad idea to wager with philosophers on board, in my opinion.

It is for similar reasons that it is very possible (and relatively easy) to prove 1 + 1 = 2 wrong.

Fine.  Here's another one.

Syndiffeonesis (essentially meaning "sameness in difference") = the logical principle that states that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' must always occupy some type of relational medium.  That is, any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' are fundamentally the same on a syntactic level, and any supposed difference between 'x' and 'y' is only the result of their fundamental sameness (e.g. 'x' and 'y' are the same in that they are absolutely different from each other).

Let's set 'x' = people of the world
Let's set 'y' = central banking system

According to syndiffeonesis, x = y at the syntactic level.

In other words, at a fundamental syntactic level, there is NO difference between the people of the world and the central banking system or the partial/unilateral monetary powers thereof.  Accordingly, one cannot be 'subject' to the other because there is no difference between one and the other....the people = the powers of the central banking system and vice versa.

Your wager fails to recognize a 3rd option...you can be right and wrong simultaneously.

Pay UP

Dude, sorry, gotta agree with the other guy.

I think he wins the 100 BTC.  It's not his fault you constructed your wager poorly.  He did as you asked.  Pay up.

This 'manipulator' talk is hilarious.

There is no "manipulator"  unless manipulator = anyone who wants to make money.

Somehow I think that if I increased my current investment 100-fold that I, too, would be "The Manipulator."

Unless there's some guy in his basement wearing a cape with a huge "M" on the back of it.

So, I truly don't know much about how obtaining insurance for something like Bitcoin would work, but it seems like having insurance, especially on exchanges/Flexcoin/online wallets is the one thing that we really really REALLY need.

If BTC is insured, it's no longer scary.  No hack worries, no scam worries...nothing. 

Why is this so hard?

I think those in the Occupy movement DO have money.  They're likely mostly middle class.  The demonstrations are tame, and tame demonstrations are led by people with something to lose.  Why would the middle class be part of the Occupy movement?  Because they don't want to be poor!

I actually think Bitcoin adoption by a huge corporation at this point might kill Bitcoin altogether.

He said a 'big' company?

630,000 people using Kiva since 2005?   

That would be like getting Bitcoin users to accept Bitcoin.

Dude I love your sig pic.

Mining cost is absolutely not irrelevant.  This is obvious.  Even if the effect is as little as 1-2% (I'd argue it's vastly more at this point) it's not a static 1-2%, it's a variance.  Something else also occurs at a 1-2% variance...trading.

Or, you could look at the difficulty or hash rate relative to value and compare time periods between, say, June, and now.

Why does everyone forget there's a human element involved?  Contrary to nerd belief, there are factors at play that can't be measured numerically. Every miner's (the person-miner pressing 'go,' not your graphics card) perspective varies and the sample size is far too small for the bell curve to apply properly.  Any factor in the Bitcoin economic system is subject to a miner/trader's perception, including difficulty and something else called an electric bill.  The speculative value of Bitcoin plays a big factor in helping a person choose whether to mine or not when the value is low.  Without this speculative value, you'd probably see a current hash rate of...well....me, because I rent with paid-for electricity.

Not to mention that mining gave rise to Bitcoin and Bitcoin only operates with miners (after all, the question of whether miners determine price is a matter of no miners vs. miners period, NOT some number of miners vs. some other number of miners).  It's axiomatic that if you take away all miners, the value will go away too.  Nothing to confirm their value anymore (the program confirms value, but we run the program). 

Also, keep in mind that miners are traders while traders are not necessarily miners.  All miners mine and will eventually trade, and trading influences price.

People need to respect the miners more.  They rule Bitcoin and will always be the most fundamental and necessary element besides the programs and computers themselves.