It is reasonable to assume that the few users who still do generate coins, do it at almost zero marginal cost, utilising resources that would have gone to waste anyhow. So it is not as ineffecient as it seems.  

Thanks for the welcome.


I think that the bitcoin system has some awkward aspects, in a word. The idea of generating (and verifying) coins through lengthy but otherwise meaningless computation is not very inspiring and introduces an inefficiency that is a barrier to widespread adoption, if it is not absolutely necessary. Then there is the problem of sustainability as the computational requirements appear to grow indefinitely over time. Finally, a finite number of coins can be hoarded and/or lost over time.

the fed will never be able to get out if this.

we will first see massive deflation and depression, much worse than in the 1920's

As for the Mises people and what to call BC, I think many mises peeps are heavy into heavy metal, so they don't want to hear that people can just run a program on their 'puter to get money.  No matter how noble the original intent of mises organisation or ANY organisation, they all build and grow and have self-interested people at their helm.

Why is this hard to understand? 

For instance, I think that gold has really very few intrinsic value, but since prehistocical ages men have noticed the fact that gold could be used as a exchange medium (it obviously complied to the three characteristics :  durable, divisable, portable). 

We are working on a bitcoin business directory so an advertising clearance house would be a natural fit with this. There is one developer working on the directory at the moment so another drupal developer or two to help us out would get it done a lot quicker.

The idea here is to support and reward originators rather than taking advantage of them as well as supporting ad free content. 

My only line of reasoning is: I don't think we should be imposing moral or creating rules of what should and should not be done with this. If we don't like it, we don't use it. Stay clear of all the things you oppose to, but let others do what they like with their own lifes... so as long as they don't affect negatively the lifes of others, but that's a completely different issue.

The simplest way to determine the outcome is to automate it completely.

The funds are frozen until one outcome is chosen by people who represent 50% or more of the betting stake. At that point, everything is paid out to those who favored the chosen outcome.

It's in no-one's interest for the funds to be tied up forever, so the participants will find a way to get 50% support for one outcome or the other.

All the organisers need to do is to run the website, not to get involved in controversies.

That will depend on whether Bitcoin gets substantial coverage in the mainstream media.

The simplest way is to let the participants confirm the outcome and have the site distribute the BTC.  Here's how it works:

Every scenario has an end date.  After that date, all participants are asked to log in to their accounts and record whether they lost or won.  As each loser confirms losing, the site divides among the winners that loser's contribution to the pool.  A proportionate amount of the winners' contribution is also paid out to the winners, ensuring the pool maintains the same ratio of bets for and against the outcome that it had when betting stopped.

But, you ask, what keeps the losers honest?

On a pseudonymous site, each user account can have an associated feedback score which helps determine honest players.

On an anonymous site, the winners can offer a partial refund to losers who pay their bets.   For example: losers who confirm their loss will be refunded 5% of their bet.  As long as the money is stored in the site account (so the losers can't use it), the losers' best interest will be to confirm their loss and retrieve the refund.

This system minimizes demands on the site operator (hopefully keeping costs low) but also protects both parties from unforeseen events.  For example, imagine a bet 10 years ago on "who will win the year 2000 U.S. presidential election?"   Those losers who don't believe the reported outcome was fairly determined can refuse to pay their bets, or better yet, they can request a high refund rate.  If the winners agree about the unfairness, they will offer the high refund rate.

But, you complain, my money and my winnings will be subject to the whim of some sore loser!  This is true, but a good site will let you sell you future share of the winnings on an open market.  You'll receive money now and some entrepreneur will try to collect from the sore loser.

-Dave

Allowing anonymity while enforcing exogenous bets is the biggest challenge IMO.

I am curious if your sites design will be open source.  Certain dangerous or possibly unethical predictions were one of the advantages I saw to bitcoin, although, obviously, you would not want to be the site admin responsible for allowing such predictions to be made.

that would be fantastic. I am ready to join!

I'd like to see Bitcoin payments implemented into Tahoe-LAFS (distributed online storage), like Zooko was on here suggesting.  I would help, but I'm just learning how to program.