I don't think there is any such law...however, I think the point that was being made is that laws don't necessarily restrain government action, especially in this regard.  Show me the statute the prohibits foreign nations from selling their oil for gold.  You won't find it, and yet it would seem wars have been waged to prevent it.

This is great news Roger!

Whoever holds that debt could request that it be repaid by family members...however, in combination with bitcoin, ripple would facilitate the exchange of bitcoins for other things...you would not hold debt for extended periods of time, but rather you would settle up periodically.

Are TestNet coins really trading for $1.90???  I looked at CryptoXChange.com and that's what it shows at the last price (although the best ask is lower than the best bid which makes me wonder).

It's the threat of arrest (or worse) that is the problem, not actual arrest.

Perhaps it should be called "The Unofficial Bitcoin Foundation"

Definitely a good idea (and I would be interested in helping David get it going).

Just set your prices relative to something else you find desirable (or perhaps your input costs) and let software do the updating for you.

Has anyone actually asked Robert Hettinga whether he is Satoshi as well as his thoughts on the analysis in the thread?

Bitcoin is not about people owing each other anything.  Having a bitcoin does not entitle you to the fruits of anyone else's labor.

I think this is completely backward.  Bitcoin is not targeted at speculators and is explicitly designed to facilitate trade.  Speculators are attracted to bitcoin because it is actually valuable.  Bitcoin isn't any more or less aligned with these *isms than those other technologies you point out.  Also, systems like Ripple that are based on debt are not a good idea for the basis of a monetary system (just as the USD and other fiat currencies based on debt are not a good idea).  A debt backed money eventually turns everyone into debt slaves to each other.  As debt becomes further and further extended, you eventually reach a point where people cannot possibly repay and begin to default.  The whole system becomes a house of cards that comes unglued when certain key debtors (or groups of debtors) default.  Ripple isn't as bad as fiat currencies where currency only exists with some debt obligation backing it and there is a central issuer, but it's still debt based and encourages people to mortgage their future in exchange for current consumption.

Well this should get really interesting.

Yep.  Stuck here too...seems awfully convenient that it's stuck when I should have a gain from my short position. 

It would actually be two different transactions in two different block chains (but asking the question in the context of just bitcoin was a simpler question to ask).  I'm trying to figure out if there is some protocol that could be devised that would allow multiple transactions in multiple block chains to be executed in a coordinated fashion.  This is crucial to the problem of creating a decentralized, p2p exchange.  A buyer would need to craft a partially completed transaction representing the bid...this would be a transaction that transfers some kind of debt-coin.  A seller would need to craft a partially completed bitcoin transaction that transfers some amount of bitcoin.  These transactions would need to be matched by a third party that can complete both transactions.  Adding ripple transfers would add more of these transactions to the process.  I'm trying to figure out if there's a way of doing this without requiring the collateral for the orders (bitcoins or debt-coins) to be transferred to a third party.

Is it possible to construct a pair of transactions such that either both are accepted into the block chain or neither is accepted?  Is it possible to do it with three transactions?

Edit: meant to post this to the development section.

I think RipplePay.com is a centralized service currently.  I do think the ripple pay approach of finding a path through a trust network to transfer debt is needed for bitcoin exchange...however, it needs to be done in a truly p2p fashion with the same privacy and irreversibility that bitcoin offers.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but I don't think it's correct.  The owners of the FED are the member banks (and I think I recently read that about 70% of all US banks are members of the FED).  Their percentage ownership is proportional to their reserves (so the largest banks are the largest shareholders).  Only US based banks are allowed to belong to the Federal Reserve system and hence hold an ownership position.

As best I can discern, the FED is able to transfer wealth in the following ways: 1) inflation of the money supply (this is the simplest and most obvious method...but probably not even the most profitable), 2)  lending for bailout...when you hear about all those bailouts that were fully repaid, know that you are being lied to...a company is allowed to borrow money from the FED is able to use that capital to generate additional capital...that company is able to draw wealth from the rest of the economy that would have otherwise ended up elsewhere...so, while a company may have repaid a loan, there was a wealth transfer that occurred and that will not be repaid, 3) over paying for assets in the open market (the FED buying toubled MBSes is one instance of this), 4) Frontrunning...insiders that have fore knowledge of FED open market actions can make moves ahead of the FED and profit...this is a direct wealth transfer from other market participants, 5) financing gov't deficit...obviously the wealth is transferred to the government when this happens, but the FED is also transferring wealth to the banks (principally the primary dealers) as well when this occurs...this is because the FED doesn't buy treasuries directly from the gov't...it buys them from banks that buy them from the Treasury...the banks make a risk free spread in that transaction...this has even been openly discussed in the media...with some calling for the FED to simply buy Treasuries directly from the Treasury Dept...so far I don't think that has happened (not surprising why).  I'm sure there are many more mechanisms employed by the FED.

Bitcoin's fundamental value is to facilitate commerce.  Volume on the exchanges is likely correlated (over the long enough time frames) with the amount of commerce that is actually taking place.  The more commerce that takes place, the higher the demand for bitcoins.  Thus, I think it stands to reason that exchange volume would be correlated with price.  This correlation might start to break down as more people that transact in bitcoin start holding bitcoin (because they can use it to subsequently pay for things or services) rather than immediately selling it on an exchange.

Can I make an offer to buy bitcoin for my personally issued debt using Open Transactions?  Can Open Transactions match my order with someone else's?  Can it find a path through a ripple network to make the match and close an irreversible exchange when it successfully finds that path?  This is the only problem I care about right now and if Open Transactions solves it, then I'm all over it.

Nice...

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

This time is different.