They have gotten huge and I think the scariest part is how much information they have on a typical google user (just chrome and android).  They pretty much know all your interests, people you interact with, where and how you travel, what content you download, etc.  If this type of information ever starts to implicate people, I think there will be a huge surge in demand for browsers, search engines and mobile operating systems that don't track your usage.

I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say.  I am talking about trading/exchanging funds between bitcoin and fiat (x bitcoin for y USD or vise versa).  Without fiat transactions, how is the government going to keep track of your bitcoin transactions?  It wouldn't be within their line of sight to know how much bitcoin you have.

It wouldn't be like using a bank, in our current system of central banking.  The money supply can't be manipulated and there wouldn't be a fractional reserve system, where you loan out several times more than what you have.

If bitcoin is going to get anywhere, it will need to enter the mainstream, and not having a dispute process for transactions will limit the number of people that will feel comfortable making payments like that.  They'll stick to their credit cards and traditional banking.

Well it's not really about your past sins, it's your current mentality which lacks tolerance for other people around the world.  If you understand the flawed mentality of "just following the rules" without questioning them, then why not question that mentality?  It's only people of this mentality that have been recruited into groups of mass genocide...killing tons of people while thinking they're doing the right thing. 

Why would someone that lives outside of a Christian dominated country EVER believe in Christianity?  Surely you see the correlation between people for the most part, continuing the belief or lack of belief in the society they grow up in...there's no decision making process.  You are Christian because your parents are.  If you grew up in Iran, you'd likely be Muslim.  If you grew up in Thailand, you'd likely be Buddhist.  And if they didn't get to you young enough, you'd likely ask too many unanswered questions to really believe what religion wants you to.  So when you see an atheist, instead of thinking that he or she should die, you might think that they just didn't have people forcing it upon them as kids and it has literally zero significance to them even though it does to you.

For moderating this thread and telling people when they are speaking off topic, you have not answered a single on-topic question I have asked you.  It's probably time to stop moderating others if you can't moderate yourself

Well that didn't really answer the questions.  It sounds like you have blind faith, that is to say that critical thinking is absent.

So according to the bible and what you just said about atheists needing to die, then you have a reason to initiate violence when the atheist has not threatened you with violence.  Do you think that type of violence is justified and that only Christians have the right to live?

Your mentality dates back a few hundred years, where atheists were actually killed off wrongfully.  Even 50 years ago it was taboo to challenge religious belief.  Today we can debate religion pretty freely and I think most of the debates with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins have beaten the crap out of the topic.  Imagine how many millions of people have been killed off in the name of religion...I bet the murderers were also just following the rules, without ever thinking about whether the rules made any sense or not.

So if atheists "need to die" according to the bible, how do you interpret or comprehend or process a statement like that?  Why would anyone need to die?  If you think that someone should die because it's written in a book, then your own ability to think is compromised.  If all you can do is refer to a book to make decisions in life, then what is the point?  Are you happy with yourself?  Do your friends consist of other people that base their lives off the same book only?

I feel sorry for you dude.  Feel free to not answer this as it is personal, but can you share where you're from?

There are so many types of transactions that governments force citizens to use their own currency for though, which keeps the demand of their fiat currencies high.  Theoretically bitcoin can work worldwide, but for example taxes are required to be paid in fiat, oil must be sold in USD, etc. which represents a lot of transactions.

Most people still trust their government far more than cryptocurrencies, so I don't think the central banking system is threatened, but I agree it is a terrible system.

Well the government doesn't actually create any value, so the only way to provide basic needs would be to either tax the rest of the citizens or borrow it from future generations.  With the way the government currently spends money however, I think it would be pretty easy to do.  I've read somewhere that it would cost $30 billion to eliminate world hunger and the US spends $600 billion on their military each year so reallocating 1/30th of that budget would do wonders.

I don't think that science is used to prove or disprove that god exists as there is no way to do that.  It is usually used to disprove certain parts of religious text, like evolution vs. creationism or the age of the earth, and then say if that is incorrect, how can we tell the rest is true?

Regarding the attempt to support the lack of belief - having a belief in something isn't the default.  Without any conditioning, I don't think many people would even think up the concept of a god, let alone a specific religious ideology.  So for those that weren't conditioned from birth, there really isn't an explanation to support the lack of belief...it's just not a part of their life.

Wouldn't bitcoin still be able to operate without the government's blessings?  It wouldn't be accepted by large retailers, but it isn't right now anyways.  I think individual online transactions would still be able to take place with or without the government's approval...right?

If they tried to confiscate bitcoin, that would definitely cause some upheaval.

Or maybe it should have said "The Genius of Keynesian Economics".  I went to see a debate with Krugman a couple years ago, and he is good at debating because he is easily to tempt listeners into tangents, and speaks confidently and arrogantly.  For Keynesian economics, he has decent arguments, but is unable to properly debate with libertarian/austrian economics views without being dismissive and lacking an explanation.  He doesn't entertain thought other than this own.  I prefer to see someone entertain the thoughts of others as deep as they can go, and then start picking apart the holes.

This happens with people that haven't responsibly managed money before winning the lottery.  If they don't learn to after winning, then especially being around other people that encourage the irresponsibility, it usually doesn't end well.

I think that people that are generally aware and happy before winning the lottery are the ones that enjoy it long term.

Everyone has a different moral compass, so grouping all kinds of different people into one bucket because they don't subscribe to a religion isn't how it works.  There will be atheists with poor morals and others with sound morals, as there will be in any religion.

Now morals are different than sin.  Something that you would consider a sin may be morally sound.  I'd say if you live in a way in that you're honest with yourself and others, and live in a way that doesn't bring harm to others whether it be physically, emotionally or mentally in order to satisfy self interest, then it's you're living overall morally sound.  That obviously requires empathy/awareness of how others feel.  So being gay is morally sound.  Altering consciousness with any type of intoxication privately is morally sound.  Believing or not believing in anything as long as it doesn't harm others is morally sound.  But they are sinful to subscribers of some religions.  Now rape or murder is not morally sound, and it is also a sin.  But a rapist that confesses his sin goes to heaven right?  And an atheist that lives in harmony with others goes to hell right?

According to the bible, I likely am a sinner.  But I don't subscribe to it.  It is as meaningful to me as the quran is to you.  To answer your second question I don't hate religion or any text associated with it.  It is interesting, but not something that I can take seriously.  It's has the same significance as Greek mythology to me.  I wasn't heavily conditioned into religion as a kid, and grew up in probably the most multicultural city in the world, where religion is not dominant in society.  But if I grew up in a place where everyone was Christian and my parents forced me to go to church and catholic school and all my friends were Christian and I listened to Christian rock, I'd likely be a devout Christian telling atheists how stupid they are for not believing and being lost souls that will go to hell.

Yeah those types of ads are popping up more often than before.  It is kind of annoying, but like you said that's the price you have to pay for free content.  I find that the ads are still usually better or more entertaining than regular cable TV.

Oh I'm not debating you.  You are just stating your opinion and you are entitled to that.  You don't have any rationale behind what you say, so there is no amount of arguing to undo the conditioning that has been done to you.  It goes back to suggesting travel

I am atheist, but I take no offense to what you say.  I appreciate the apology though.

I am not concerned about whether or not you like me.  You made an ignorant statement, there is no debating that.  But I will apologize for offending you personally if you feel that I have done so - that is not the intent.

If you make a generalization that Atheists cannot love and not thinking you are offending people, then you really shouldn't be offended either.

It's not that you don't know something.  But a statement as ignorant as "Atheists cannot love" can't be resolved through words.  That is a very bold statement that and you must live in a very small world to think it to be true.  Love is a human emotion, that is not conditional on any religious belief.

And I do think traveling is one of the best ways to rid ourselves of ignorance.  The internet is a great tool as well of course, but it is no replacement for traveling.

The younger generation is becoming a huge market, and they are able to spend their parents' money...and the type of content they are going to consume is going to be different than older generations.  Watching someone play video games and talk is a big market because of these kids, and you can't blame someone on capitalizing on that market.

I've mentioned it to a few friends.  Some have awareness of it and have used it before, and others have heard about it but don't really know anything about it.  I wouldn't say that I "turned" anyone, but it's interesting to have conversation with them about it and ponder where it's headed.

If you really think that, it's probably time to get on a plane and do some traveling.  No need to reference an old book - go see the world for yourself.