so what?  five banks control 90% of the entire worlds' economies.  and early adopters don't 'control' any part of the economy other than through those bitcoin-based businesses they own.


and?  (n.b.: investigate the meaning of 'level playing field')


how does one crash a market by buying everything available that's offered for sale in it?  and how do 'early adopters' use their bitcoin to buy bitcoin?

you're an idiot.  or a paid troll.  probably both.

have a nice day.

Jesus Christ...

you mean like that?

oh.  you're one of those "i've been screwed by the early adopters" people?

< shrug >

they took the risks to make it work.  you didn't.

i hope they all get a million times richer than i do.

ah.  the 'Gish Gallop'.

no.

why would you make an effort to surpass perfection?

i have no problem in accepting that there are, and have been, others who have expressed a thought more perfectly than i can.  i'm not diminished by that at all.

that was an excellent one...

the failure of Bitcoin due to competition with a more successful form of crypto-currency would obviously only serve to strongly reinforce my assumptions as to the merits of the basic idea.

Bitcoin's failure due to some kind of unilateral implosion would definitely lead to reassessment.

thank you, but i'm quite happy with my definition of risk - which in this case would be the high probability of losing everything one owns.

but perhaps Bitcoin is not for you.  have you considered naked shorts on credit default-swap futures?

i don't disagree with your implication, creighto - nevertheless, it is still the best i've read from a main-stream economic publication.

i didn't say it was wonderful.  but this journalist has made some serious effort, and grasped some ideas that most haven't a clue about, and have made no effort at all to understand.

yes.  you are mis-understanding something.

the opportunity which you perceive - to own Bitcoin, to profit from them, and to use a currency with all of the advantages Bitcoin has and none of the disadvantages of government-controlled fiat currency - is the direct result of those 100 people taking the first steps on the path to an intelligent form of money.

without them - without their willingness to take which was, at the time, an incredible risk - none of us would have anything.

thank you for your transcription, TraderTimm.

this is actually the best researched and most informed article i've read, from a main-stream economic publication.

does anybody have mr. dingle's email addy?  he should be invited to this forum.

~OW

the SS system doesn't even need reform.  a little tweak or two for the next gen.  what it REALLY needs is for the rest of the government to stop stealing from it - which they've been doing for a long time.

but you don't get out if you don't pay in.  and survivors get some of what you paid in if you die before you collect, and they qualify.  it was your money, after all.

you can argue that SS is coerced, if you like.  it doesn't matter to me.  i'm 60 years old, and my parents and grandparents saw starvation.  screw that.  we should treat our brothers and sisters decently - if they contribute during their lives.

and i suppose you could make the argument that the 'early adopters' made out like bandits - they got quite a lot, relatively, without putting as much in as the rest of us.  sound like a familiar argument?  care to make it?  of course, they were all dead by WWII, so the point is moot.  and besides, they built more of our country and its structure than any tinhorn carpetbagger.

you lose.

actually, you're mistaken.

now me, i certainly plan on paying my (US) taxes - always have, always will.  but in the US, one of the earliest SCOTUS decisions regarding taxes was this:  it is lawful to arrange one's affairs for the sole purpose of reducing one's tax burden.

and where you're mistaken, forever-d, is in this:  a US citizen owes no federal tax (and obviously no state tax) on the first $90,000 of income in a year where said taxpayer/citizen lived for the entire year in a foreign country.  think about it.

if Bitcoin works out and i cash out, it would make sense for me to tourist around and rent a studio apartment in a bordering canadian province for $400/mo - and cash in $90,000 USD worth of Bitcoin.  maybe do some traveling in other countries as well.  as long as i didn't live in the US for that entire calendar year, $90k of my income would be tax free.  and - since i would not be living in any state or territory, i would owe no state taxes. either.

i would still have to pay Social Security taxes, but i don't mind that at all; since it is not an entitlement program of any kind.  and this little experiment in democracy known as the United States has already seen the terrible result of ignoring the elderly and unable to work.  Social Security is easily the most successful program in our history - and it took a class-traitor who saw his own class for what it was to ram it down our throats.

they plant an illegal substance in your home.  they'd rather be evil than proven wrong.

on the other hand, you could call your local DEA office, explain that you're running some fairly intensive computer stuf, your electric bill has quadrupled, and you'd like to invite them over.

have a lawyer present when they show up...

oh man...

block #210,001 is going to be EPIC.

i... i don't understand.

that couldn't be superman!  why, he's wearing glasses!

nick szabo.

nah.  some folks just take pride in ignorance.

for example:  that the clan (hmmm... possible spelling error) which preceded the current president were probably the biggest drug-dealers in history.  especially the senior, who started his drug-dealing before he was even the VP.  of course, the son had the intellectual capacity of a clam, and was really only coasting...