I wonder about that. Your model does follow adoption of products for example. You may be right. But bitcoin has some properties that are more comparable to something like domain names. In that case the demand seems to grow based on increasing uses for the internet protocol. It's going to be interesting to look back 10 years from now.

Because we tolerate injustice.  

Wouldn't it be more sadistic to force people to make the decisions you want, rather than their own? And if people are going to be foolish enough to trade on the utter crap they read here then I have no problem trading against their willful ignorance. It's not like they haven't been told that people are manipulating them with rumors. Why should I have to coddle them because they believe the NSA or China is doing this or that? 

True that. That's the thing for me. There are so many ways for us to resist that destroying bitcoin could not be done in a cost effective way. Mess with BTC and it will just mutate into a harder to control form. It's why I think we have already largely won the war.

I will not. Want to trade? Ok then it's on again. Bye bye govbtc.

It is good if only one qualified person reads it. It can't be me; so it's true that I must trust someone else, but I do.

LOL. You can't mandate that people stop saying silly things. Let them talk. The FUD they spread can be quite profitable.  

No.
You should read up on open source software to understand why.

I made money this month with bitcoin. I think I like being a "Money Wolf". Owuuuu...

I wish that fiatleak thing did work. But it does not appear to me to be correct. It looks like almost all sales are happening in China and that does not match other sources.

Reason to sell #10:

I want more of your money!

I love OReilly. He's the funniest dufus ever. It's hilarious to watch him struggle with understanding even the most basic facts in any subject. Him trying to get his head around bitcoin would be like watching a dog attend a math class. 

If bitcoin could be hurt and needed my help, I would not want it. People should be able to do as they want. Even if it is wasting their money.

That sucks man. The good news is that because they are a US based business you do have options. I don't normally advise people to jump to drastic action, but you have waited long enough. Why not go after their business licenses and ask the police to investigate? I bet when the law gets involved things will change. Again, I hate to go straight for the big guns but WTF. This should have taken weeks not months.

The sad part is that they claim to be trying to be a legit US business. If they were they would be in a great position to go big. Considering their unresponsiveness and sloth, I guess they are going the way of the dinosaurs instead. 

That's a good point. They are also insured, I assume. But if you understand the technology then you may consider unshared control of your private keys to be even more secure than trusting a third party. If you don't understand, then farming out security might be a worthwhile investment.

  Bigfoot?

March 6th. 2015 at exactly 2:12GMT.

Does that make you feel better. 

Also exchanging emails about our efforts, meeting him in person and befriending him.  I'll actually be at the foundation headquarters next week. But that aside, why can't we just take what Gavin says at face value? It always has to be a bold, uninformed statement that claims to know a secret agenda. It's like reading the tabloids that quote "a pal of Justin Bieber said...". You know that the source is a guy who once saw him at a club for like five minutes.

Another rock solid source.  

If you want to understand why the Chinese government is spooked by bitcoin you will need to read up on QQ and Qcoin. That is their paradigm, just as the liberty dollar is what bitcoin means to US regulators.

Q coin was a private virtual currency that took off in China. Before anyone noticed it had grown to be a threat to the economy. At least the PBOC thought so.

I think of a double spend as a spend with confirmation followed by another spend of the same balance. Without confirmation it seems to me that the protocol is behaving as designed and, as you mention, it's an operator error. I also don't think that it counts if it happened on the test net.
A true double spend in the wild would spook me. If a method were found to do that, it would be the most serious threat to bitcoin so far.