Yeah, sorry I did not check carefully enough at first. I rephrase my answer:

I don't know. Doesn't seem legit.

I would say - an attempt to sell a lot of coins quickly, and realize the best possible price for them.

During feudalism, the top 2% owned 100% of the wealth.

The mercantile age and later, industrial age, and liberalism, all increased the middle class (although the poor stayed poor until liberalism tried to lift them up also). The current concentration of wealth has nothing to do with Misesian policies. In reality what has happened is that the age of liberalism (with maximal freedom that the western world has enjoyed lately) ended in Federal Reserve in 1913 and the war 1914 (war could only be started when Fed had been founded). Since that the world has suffered from a tightening grip of one collectivist cabal, who have controlled and control both the collectivist Soviet Union and the collectivist USA. The details of wealth concentration are slightly different, but in both the wealth has been concentrated to the inner circle.

With Bitcoin we see how wealth is concentrated in a fully voluntary fashion. The end result is not even very different. Currently 1400 bitcoin holders (0.15%) own half of the bitcoins, and 80% of the bitcoins are in the hands of 2.5% of the people. The same!

I am not a great fan of the current system, but the reason is not that they are too capitalist (because they are not; socialism is a better word, or fascism, corporatism, collectivism). The reason is that the system is unfair.

Bitcoin, as a fair equal opportunity system, has produced a similar wealth distribution, therefore we cannot say the wealth disparity is evil per se. All market participants, you, me, and everyone else can decide to buy or sell bitcoins. How can that result in anything but optimal distribution?

roundnumber is correct. Thank you. Remember all to send the satoshimessage as PM before you send the transaction

Yes. Did the sheet work fine? It is officially still a beta, I will update latest tomorrow, but the green fields will stay the same there is not much leeway in them

The deadline to pay is 5th and submission of the entry is 6th.

I want to give enough time to figure out how it works and for the word to spread. The first round is very important because it is 8/36 of the whole competition, including the hardest-to-forecast long predictions.

I will reserve the right to limit the number of entrants, but 50 first entrants will be accepted in every case.

LOL. The mess originated when they threw the said theories and common sense out of the window.

(Almost as hilarious as saying that something with an IPO is a coin and not a share.. )

Funny that anons are worried in which ways I choose to give out my money... 

It is important that bitcoins can be bought in a secure and functional way.

It is important that their storage can be so easy that people with lower and lower IQ can without stress handle it.

But it is more important than most of us early-adopter-high-IQ-intellectual-fat-fucks(sorry Mark!) can comprehend, that the price of 1 unit of currency seems cheap, if we want increasing numbers of people to buy into it.

At present the active Bitcoin usage is trailing far behind the ownership. We have 1 million+ owners, but, in my estimation, perhaps only 50,000 people make transactions regularly. To get new active users, we must get new owners.

But many of the prospective owners feel that the price is high at $440. If they only want to dip in with small money, they might (unconsciously) feel that buying a fraction of 1 bitcoin is either not allowed, or not even possible, or that the "train has left the station". There would not be any problem in buying 200+ coins at $0.44 a piece though, for a person who is considering a purchase worth $100.

It is not a question of "if" but "when". There is less than 2mBTC per person in the world, which means that a worldwide realistic distribution leads to situation where the majority has less than 200µBTC (median is way smaller than average). People are unwilling to start using a currency that would make their entire net worth start with a 0.00xxx. Fixing it does not cost anything.

Bitcoin is broadcast to the masses via popular media. If there is to be any realistic chance to make the media use the split unit instead of the basic unit, we should make this decision as a community and make every Bitcoin business adhere to the decision. Only then will the outsiders make the switch.

Do you consider that the matter is of high enough importance that any community decision is warranted, or should we continue on a voluntary basis, likely resulting in media reporting bitcoin price in $100s per BTC instead of $1s or $10s per mBTC?

I am all for making crisp names for the units. This poll is not about how we should name them, it is about the correct location of the decimal point.

What's the maximum leverage there?

I am sorely afraid that the instant (or not too long after) the U.S. stops using any kind of threat of violence to support the U.S. dollar, its value collapses.

Gold will still be dug from the ground with great effort as usual, no matter if USD is destroyed or not.

I am not convinced.

It is a fact that mining somehow backs and adds value to Bitcoin. But how to explain it best? Who can help? (I am at a loss despite calling me "monetary economist" even before Bitcoin was invented  )

I believe that these development should be explored. Bitcoin was born as a disruptive innovation, and now/soon it maybe time to consolidate the gains by making incremental improvements.

It is like the earliest automobile was an invention over buggy, but religious sticking to its parameters would seem funny from the perspective of us who use quite different vehicles these days. Similarly I can only lament the fact that any real progress in human transportation ended with jet engine, because of the selfsame religious sticking to certain concepts and stifling of competition of innovation.

I am of the opinion that PoS is inherently fiat, and inherently non-coin, unimplementable, unworkable and undesirable. But I am open to change my opinion if new facts surface. Unwillingness to change opinions with facts is a trait not fitting for a Bitcoin user.

Emailed. Just tell me the link to it.

The format that they must use to express the predictions is fixed. (This is a great advantage to the usual predicting where people predict whatever over whatever timeframe and have no scenario/probability understanding).

But the way to reach the conclusions of where the price is going is completely up to you!! 

There is still a week to go, and 2200 readers of the thread. Not all are willing to show that they are entering. Also they can enter at any further point of time. It is hardly likely that you will be alone for the whole duration of the competition, and should that happen, it only guarantees you the prize pot (jackpot is always at least 1,000mBTC, otherwise see the prize pot distribution in the OP).

If you seriously think that there will be nobody else in the first round, perhaps making two entries to play against each other would be the way to go: If the price goes up, then "sgbett_bull" has a huge advantage because it is the only one getting pluspoints for the 8 month-predictions. If the price is sluggish, then "sgbett_bear" is gaining ground. But if one of them gets knocked out, the other makes only 0 points for those months where there was no other entries.... 

Perhaps you see now why the -20 rule is important 

I made it such that you can enter with 5 different scenarios for 0.25, if you want to maximize your chances and blow your brain in outsmarting your opponents! 

I don't know where the price goes. By selling puts I win nevertheless: either I collect the premium, or I get to buy cheap + collect the premium.

The buyer's risk would be limited to the premium paid, and upside is quite good if the price dips, also no need to know when it does.

It's a different strategy for both than margin trading.