LOL!  I agree, I am happy with how things turned out, a Currency by the People, For the People.

I think Bitcoin has street cred since it's inception fully supported and evolved to the peoples tastes.   Long Live Bitcoin!!

I was born in the most violent country in the world... they have freedom like you do not imagine there... People have the right to kill you in cold blood and they can get away with it... and so do you; Politicans, mayors get murdered regularly, Armed gangs roam the streets, My father has always carried a gun with him... he has been in many violent encounters with Charlatans, robbers, drunk assholes, I have witnessed murders in public places filled with people, who don't even bother to stop eating their meal while it is happening, the dead bodies in the streets, my friend getting murdered in front of his wife and son... When I was 11 i got into my first gun fight, stealing the gun of a drunk armed man, while my father faced him in the streets with his own gun, one of my friends in elementary school stopped coming to school after he was shot up by machine gun fire..

I'm not sure you want that level of freedom

Forgive me if my answer seems extreme, this is what has happened in my life, people protect their communities in shifts there to guard against the Chaos that threatens to engulf them, it is a strange equilibrium that is reached there when people take the law into their own hands. Here drug dealers spike their products with adulterants that put people in the hospital... there if that happens, you'll never see that drug dealer again, Thought of stealing poor communities land through legal means... you won't live long, threaten and belittle people in a dangerous way... It'll be your last time.  So in one way or another Equilibrium, the law of the gun will equal everyone out.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/world/americas/honduras-murder-capital

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#q=honduras+violence&hl=en&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nvd1UfO9AsfeiALKrIDYCg&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=37701b21af624553&biw=1280&bih=678&ion=1

Whats the Magnum Opus? Can you provide a link, i would be very interested.

Wow the idea of a Market based Government sounds amazing.

Just imagine one day the collective people of a nation can decide what laws to follow, with a new Globally accepted constitution and rights for each individual so It wouldn't risk the inevitable poll( e.g. how many are in favour of killing x group from the planet?) that would be scary!

just imagine a consensus of the people. no more distinction between Muslim and Jew / Protestant and Catholic the people themselves would decide when the peace and safety of the collective was threatened by individuals with radical ideals and violent leanings.

it would encourage people to find solutions that are accepted by the people of the community instead of working in isolation with a distorted world view.



Hay, what if we built a distributed A.I computer like Watson with it? The block chain would be it's memories.
We could use if for research to advance Robotics and A.I. research to develop a simplified computation of a subject.

for example we program the A.I. to acquire and remix all it's information into all the current Different theories of A.I research.  so it's 10 distinct  A.I.s compiling subjects like psychology,sociology, economics, social trends etc and then re-mixes all of them into one little program for quick upload for smaller less powerful robots or A.I.s that simply don't have the crunching power to learn these subjects properly. in essence the big A.I learns then shares it to it's less intelligent kin.

we give the distributed A.I machine vision, speech recognition, natural language understanding and begin programming the different learning programs for all the distinct senses that it may have so that those evolve as well, this could advance A.I research 200 fold and then the compiled education will be given to house bots that can monitor your habits and order pizza when you ask it to, setup a cab for you to be picked up, or make suggestions on what to eat to maintain a healthy diet, hell it would order it for you from the store and set it up for delivery

In fact... it can be done with help.

wow, hay if anyone of you is interested in this lets start our on distributed A.I. program.

it could make the solving of modern problems much easier. hell it can probably teach and educate people on all subjects that anyone is interested in.


In the spirit of Bitcoin, we would pitch our idea on BitcoinStarter and fund the research in bitcoins,  All the people who participate would be paid for their computer time once it is set and working, we distribute the work for free and continue the BitcoinStarter model, funding the project continuosly with the interest of people being gauged by the amount of bitcoins we get.  

Same for the idea of a distributed polling system, in the end we give it away for free for the community to attract the larger bitcoin community to see the benefit of funding research.


I figured a long time ago, that to increase innovation using a CreativeCommons license, it would be free to use, free to distribute and you can charge for it too if you like.  This aspect helps promote the idea cause if other people can't make money off of it, it becomes a dead end, why would other people build on top of something that they have no possibility of earning a living from?  I figure that someone who can make a living doing what they love will be more devoted to it; their natural inclination to the idea would ensure innovation, their intellect would not be wasted on projects or work that they see no interest beyond getting a paycheck.

Why is mount Gox not implementing a POW to verify all transactions? It doesn't have to be hard, just hard enough that it slows down the transaction to human level!

and the DDOS attacks! WTF! This is seriously hurting things, this has to be figured out.


If the Developers of the exchanges read this: Please understand that I truly believe in Bitcoin and would like to see it thrive.
Ever since I found out about it, I have understood what it is doing to the world and am looking forward to the changes that it will bring.

Please fix the exchanges, A Proof-of-Work system can take care of those Distributed Denial Of Service attacks.

Thank You.

私は本当にBitcoinのを信じて、それが繁栄見てみたいことを理解してください：。交流の開発者は、これを読めば
私はそれを知った以来、私はそれが世界にやっていると、それがもたらす変化を楽しみにしているのか理解しました。

、交流を修正してください証拠の作業システムは、サービス攻撃のそれらの分散拒否の世話をすることができます。

ありがとう。


I'm not sure if Google translate translated that properly so, hope it makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash


In fact if you have a website and are victim to DDOS please implement a Proof-of-Work to save the internet. I am sure you all heard about the 300 gb/s attack that occured a few weeks back. When implementing the system for the pools, it may take some trial and error as to what level of lag is necessary, but basically, make them work for every transaction they try to send with Low Orbit Ion Cannon. The bots are only going to get faster, time to slow them down.

Since then, the attacks have grown to more than 300 Gb/s of flood traffic: a scale that's threatening to clog up the Internet's core infrastructure and make access to the rest of the Internet slow or impossible.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/03/spamhaus-ddos-grows-to-internet-threatening-size/

Dude... You just blew me away.

THE A.I. CAN USE MONEY!!!!  hmmmm, very interesting. 

Why Thank You very much sir.

I have no intention of going further with this on this form, If it threatens the existence of Bitcoin.

Just seeing if someone saw this angle or not, It's nutty!! Satoshi coded Democracy right into the program!

Hear me out here,

I was trying to figure out how to respond to another members response to my reason for thinking that Bitcoin was made to spread wealth across the globe and I kept
reading this and then I noticed something... This system looks a lot like Democracy.  correct me if i'm wrong but, this is what I see in it, what do you see? can you read what I read?

I changed the wording just a little bit and kept the orignal text for comparison.





The proof-of-work(facts) also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote(representative), it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate(control) many IPs(representatives). Proof-of-work(facts) is essentially one-CPU-one-vote(information). The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain(group concensus), which has the greatest proof-of-work(facts) effort invested
in it.

If a majority of CPU(information) power is controlled by honest nodes(people), the honest chain(group) will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains(groups). To modify a past block(historical event), an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work(facts) of the block(historical event) and all blocks(historical events) after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes(people). We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks(historical events) are added.

5. Network

The steps to run the network are as follows:

1) New transactions(information) are broadcast to all nodes(people).
2) Each node(person) collects new transactions(information) into a block(historical event).
3) Each node(person) works on finding a difficult proof-of-work(fact) for its block(historical event).
4) When a node(person) finds a proof-of-work(fact), it broadcasts the block(historical events) to all nodes(people).
5) Nodes(people) accept the block(historical event) only if all transactions(information) in it are valid and not already spent(known).
6) Nodes(people) express their acceptance of the block(historical event) by working on creating the next block(historical event) in the
chain(group), using the hash(logic) of the accepted block(historical event) as the previous hash(logic).

6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction(information) in a block(historical event) is a special transaction(information) that starts a new coin(trust) owned
by the creator of the block(historical event). This adds an incentive for nodes(people) to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins(trust) into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins(trust) is analogous to gold(value) miners expending
resources to add gold(value) to circulation. In our case, it is CPU(information) time and electricity(effort) that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction(information) fees(value). If the output(meaning) value of a transaction(information) is
less than its input(utility) value, the difference is a transaction(information) fee(value) that is added to the incentive value of
the block(historical event) containing the transaction(information). Once a predetermined number of coins(trust) have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction(information) fees(value) and be completely inflation(manipulation)
free.The incentive may help encourage nodes(people) to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU(information) power than all the honest nodes(people), he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments(values), or using it to generate new coins(trust). He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins(trust) than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.


I could be wrong though, this is just what I read into it... I've read the damn thing 10-20 times and the wording Satoshi uses was bugging me throughout the paper. I don't think this thing is describing just a digital financial system, it seems to describe how to maintain information integrity over a digital communication channel for the purpose of collective concensus.


A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend
the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every
transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to
issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent.
The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the
company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.

The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions.
In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and
decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be
publicly announced

A timestamp server works by taking a
hash of a block of items to be time-stamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a
newspaper or Usenet post The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the
time,

The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.

This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such
as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are
not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block
containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent.

12. Conclusion

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

+10

Good work

Sorry... I got carried away with something else I noticed in it, I encourage people to question me, I learn better that way.

I was reading Satoshi's paper to find all the peer to peer references, this is what I was thinking of... why didn't Satoshi just use a encryption for each coin in circulation with a Trimmetric Encryption, three keys.  one for the bank that owns it assigning them as the Institution in possession of it, a public key for transferring it between institutions and a third key that would be an extra key assigned to the possessor of the coin?
 
Since the system is running from the banks you would have to connect to your bank sooner or later. Since every single coin is encrypted and never leaves the bank and just hops from bank to bank with new encryption keys at every level no need for peer to peer communication. and each coin is encrypted so it becomes really insane to try to steal a large amount of them, you could only rob one person at a time and even then you have to break the bank branches encryption to get rid of which bank owns them not to mention re-assigning it to the attackers institution; plus if the banks Firewalls/Network has no record of that coin, it can effectively deduce that it is a fake; and it scales too, you can add as many keys as you need for multiple parties, making it extremely difficult to falsify.

I can show you how but I won't; I like Bitcoin.

there are a lot of ways to re-invent the wheel and keep it completely centralized.

 If he had done that it wouldn't of had to be Peer to peer, anyone trying to break the individual code of each coin would find it inpractical to do since it would take weeks just to falsify 1 coin.

i simply deduced it from all the mention of peer-to-peer that's all.

My thinking is; Why would Satoshi program the client to pay out a standard fee of .0005BTC for every transaction? I think he wanted to spread the wealth and figured the transaction would number in the quadrillions.

This is simply speculation on my part, guessing, trying to understand what this Person or Group did. I just can't imagine them doing this and thinking that people would expend resources for free...why would they code it in there?

I love this community! Bitcoin is so deep on so many levels! so many puzzles!

+10000!!!!

Thank you! hopefully i'm not annoying people with my wild ideas, but here it goes.

here is the math:

Current bitcoin production average 3600 (+/- 400)/ day * 365 days = 1,314,000 BTC/ year   * (current value whatever it is, at the moment $130usd) = $170,800,000usd/year)

what if the interest increases? what if people are eager to enter the Bitcoin market? bitcoin will naturally scale so

increase the price to 1000  and you get = $1,314,000,000 USD/year  

what if it increases to world wide level demand?

increase the price to $200,000 USD/BTC =  $262,800,000,000 USD/year

what if the system tries to take the maximum amount of bitcoins possible all 21,000,000,000,000,000 USD/satoshiBTC?  = $27,594,000,000,000,000,000,000 USD/year

There is a lot of zero's past that decimal point.

The system scales my friends, the system scales.

In a way you got to remember that the fiat currencies inflate infinitely.... each coin can be worth an infinite amount of USD... one coin could be worth the entire world economy.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!

Found this article, it is worth reading all the way; think about, it could help us find the real stable growth pattern... but remember we do not know what all the factors are for Bitcoin, so just consider it, study it, discuss it, the group will find a better answer then anyone of us.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/20/what-can-behavioral-finance-can-teach-us-about-bubbles/

wow, I should have read that last page.

but what about the A.I. traders & algorithm traders? These algorithm based traders are dangerous could they of had something to do with it? I mean if a whole bunch of them are triggered in just the right way, all of them will go off one by one and they won't start buying until the price reaches a specific level to trigger them all up in sequence again.

This could be a interesting read, hell I've heard a few monitor the news to figure out social movements to create more effective trades; Just imagine Watson the supercomputer that beat Ken Jennings running the stock market; one for each broker.

http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/scott-patterson/dark-pools-the-rise-of-ai-trading-machines-and-the-looming-threat-to-wall-street-9781847940988.aspx

anyone read this hilarious story about a pricing algorithm that made a book sold on ebay for several million dollars.. yet only $17 dollars at the store? Do they really understand what they are doing?

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358

It could be interesting, cause when you start using pure math to predict a system... just gotta get enough of them, leave humans out of the loop and boom! The trades are no longer meaning/utility based or based on any semblance of reality the math itself begins to control the movement of the markets in completely counter intuitive ways.

The proof-of-work(facts) also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote(representative), it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate(control) many IPs(representatives). Proof-of-work(facts) is essentially one-CPU-one-vote(information). The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain(group concensus), which has the greatest proof-of-work(facts) effort invested
in it.

If a majority of CPU(information) power is controlled by honest nodes(people), the honest chain(group) will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains(groups). To modify a past block(historical event), an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work(facts) of the block(historical event) and all blocks(historical events) after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes(people). We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks(historical events) are added.

5. Network

The steps to run the network are as follows:

1) New transactions(information) are broadcast to all nodes(people).
2) Each node(person) collects new transactions(information) into a block(historical event).
3) Each node(person) works on finding a difficult proof-of-work(fact) for its block(historical event).
4) When a node(person) finds a proof-of-work(fact), it broadcasts the block(historical events) to all nodes(people).
5) Nodes(people) accept the block(historical event) only if all transactions(information) in it are valid and not already spent(known).
6) Nodes(people) express their acceptance of the block(historical event) by working on creating the next block(historical event) in the
chain(group), using the hash(logic) of the accepted block(historical event) as the previous hash(logic).

6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction(information) in a block(historical event) is a special transaction(information) that starts a new coin(trust) owned
by the creator of the block(historical event). This adds an incentive for nodes(people) to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins(trust) into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins(trust) is analogous to gold(value) miners expending
resources to add gold(value) to circulation. In our case, it is CPU(information) time and electricity(effort) that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction(information) fees(value). If the output(meaning) value of a transaction(information) is
less than its input(utility) value, the difference is a transaction(information) fee(value) that is added to the incentive value of
the block(historical event) containing the transaction(information). Once a predetermined number of coins(trust) have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction(information) fees(value) and be completely inflation(manipulation)
free.The incentive may help encourage nodes(people) to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU(information) power than all the honest nodes(people), he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments(values), or using it to generate new coins(trust). He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins(trust) than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.


I could be wrong though, this is just what I read into it... I've read the damn thing 10-20 times and the wording Satoshi uses was bothering me throughout the paper. I don't think this thing is describing just a digital financial system, it seems to describe how to maintain information integrity over a digital communication channel for the purpose of collective concensus.


A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend
the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every
transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to
issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent.
The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the
company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.

The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions.
In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and
decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be
publicly announced

A timestamp server works by taking a
hash of a block of items to be time-stamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a
newspaper or Usenet post The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the
time,

The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.

This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such
as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are
not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block
containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent.

12. Conclusion

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

I know! Everyone is trying the get rich quick scheme, but maybe it's a good thing.  
yes I know it's really a bad thing... but the reason they are doing this is cause they think that by pumping up the price and then dumping it they get rich and laugh all the way to the bank. The idiots!! They're still thinking of it like the inflationary fiat currencies! they don't realize Bitcoin scales all the way to 21 million USD/BTC!!

There must be a better way, we have to figure bitcoins nature as soon as possible, and tell these people what they are doing is wrong.

but just to balance it out... at what point in the Bitcoin economy would the inflationary characteristics begin to rear their ugly head? I'm thinking along the lines that at one point the usd may of had the same characteristics of bitcoins when it was being adopted. We would have to do some historical research into the beginnings of currencies and barter exchanges to find out at what point bitcoin will begin acting like a inflationary currency.

Would that point be reached when all people are on Bitcoin and Litecoin? and if so what would control the value of Bitcoins? would it be rock solid stable as soon as people stopped converting their bitcoins to fiat?    !

Yo I had a stroke of inspiration!

I figured it out, The deflationary nature of Bitcoin... and all these failing economies. They kept printing money, more and more just trying to stave off economic collapse. the only way to avoid the Fiat/BTC/Fiat cycle is to convince these countries that to save their economies they have to convert to Bitcoin(Gold Standard) and Litecoin(Silver Standard)! We may need a bronze standard for quick store front purchases.

the only way they could avoid collapse would be to start buying Bitcoins and Litecoins!!!

the mere fact that this would allow their currencies to safely collapse would further increase the value of bitcoin to USD, this would effectively introduce another scaling mechanism for Bitcoin.

well it was designed to do that we do have 100,000,000 subdivisions of 1 bitcoin so if you consider we have 21,000,000 available coins thats... 21 quadrillion dollars; suspiciously... thats the number is 100 times the value of all money in circulation... so that would be enough to handle all the transactions on the planet.

It could happen, the deflationary characteristics of bitcoin would allow it to grab all of that safely forcing all failing government to switch their currencies to Bitcoin since it appreciates in value as more people begin using it, there fore no one would ever need to switch their money to fiat again...     Madness!!!! Satoshi! you are a Genius!!!

what if they have no choice and just to keep afloat begin to buy bitcoins, skyrocketing the price? Now then they would really have an incentive to not sell any of their Government owned bitcoins; Because they would know that the deflationary system used by bitcoin would prop up the economy while the Dollar was low.

Now the safety of that would be quite questionable since, whats to stop everyone else from cashing in on the skyrocketing value? therefore dampening and leveling the market, If they didn't inject enough money into it to offset everyone else cashing out they'll lose money... and Bitcoin is world wide so thats a lot of people.

by the way, i'm just guessing. everyone is still trying to figure out how to more or less understand how Bitcoin behaves.  Just guessing.

lol thats hilarious, so how is the dreaded Stolen finger attack implemented? What if their lazy and they just want to minimize lag and take all the fingers?

I am an idiot, I started reading Satoshi's old posts, he does describe some economic effects. wow, the paper is so sanitized, but I guess it would be if it was intended as a academic paper.

Did you check out the first link with the talk by Marshall Brain? that is really good for describing whats going to happen, did you see the graph with the market job rates? it looked pretty grim, I figure if someone could find the graph he was showing we could extrapolate a trend line.

but yeah, the difficulty would scale to those people too eventually, but I think while it is being adopted the price should increase to increase the system capability of handling all transactions globally, so the system has a built in incentive to add as many miners as possible until it scales to unprofitability... of course counting on the fact that there are enough transaction to pay for all those miners cause the Bitcoin lottery is not going to cut it if there's too many miners.

The production of goods could be further automated, Have you seen the FPGA chips? They are Programmable Field Gate Arrays, these chips could be programmed to virtualize any instituions work load, Bitcoin could be a model for sustainable automation. I mean we have to have a measure of scarcity in the system, it has to be, otherwise jeez someones going to start using their new 3d printers to print a bazzilion trinkets just like a hoarder. they'd probably just do it to spite everyone else too.

jeez it could get crazy because I know you can build neural chips for neural networks with a FPGA... this could be interesting, those chips cost millions of dollars for each one, one of those FPGA could make a Semantic Web Machine for 1/10000 of the price.

jeez all I can think of are all the industries that could be Virtualized and distributed just like Bitcoin thanks to these FPGA chips.

Hmmm. the loss of the work force would occur slowly, cause I don't think all those unemployed people have the money to buy a GPU. cause I know people are greedy they would still try to work while their rigs were happily virtualizing all human institution for a fee or they could be incentivised to start another open source corporation like bitcoin to generate more revenue...

but wow, I mean wow Satoshi designed and created the first client and then got input from thousands of people, this is a viable method of building a company...

lets see what industries could be automated: everything pretty much, just thinking of something to virtualize.

Accounting companies done online, instead of inhouse they could send their work loads to the network to start managing their AR/AP work.

maybe distributed research farms for the pharmaceutical companies, I mean if they got paid in bitcoins they can take some of the miners away to do some useful tasks like finding new cures for cancer. etc.  the network would have more processing power than anything the pharmaceutical industry could come up with cost effectively.

massive p2p simulators for governments and other virtualized companies.   my head is full of ideas.