The Federal Reserve has as much to do with the Federal government as Federal Express.
Funny how many people don't realize that the Federal Reserve is a private cartel of banks which operates completely outside the control of the US government.
The Federal Reserve doesn't use taxpayer money to buy assets, they simply magic new money out of thin air and buy "stuff" with it.  When the Federal Reserves says they are buying $85B worth of MBS each month it means they magically created $85B and exchange that newly created money for the MBS they are buying.  


An idea of the scale of printing we are talking about ...



Yup $2T created out of think air and used to buy assets (to drive prices up and yields down).

How did the OP reach the conclusion that the report was about founders?  It included any address which only received and hadn't spent coins in the 3 months prior to the report (aka May 2012).  Essentially any cold wallet by anyone (including major exchanges and companies) created in 2012 would be included.

Like I said a velocity of 8.5 is unheard of in any economy anywhere on the planet ... ever.  So either you forgot to carry a one or your something is wrong with your analysis.

For example the US money supply (M2) is roughly $10T and US annual GDP is ~$15T.  That is a velocity of 1.5.   If the Bitcoin economy had a similar velocity of money to support current price (~$135 * 11M BTC * 1.5 = $2.3B) $2.3B in commerce annually.  Of course Bitcoin also has a store of value component so it is likely that Bitcoin velocity would be lower.  At $1B per month I would expect (based on economic theory) for BTC:USD exchange rate to be north of $1,000.

GDP is a measure of commerce over time.  Money Supply is a timeless value.  Velocity is the conversion factor.  A Velocity of 1 means an economy with x monetary units engaged in x transactions annually (i.e. each unit was used once).   

Would be better to calculate it as a compounding gain.

Final Price = Current Price * (daily % gain ^ 2825).

The reason is that even if BTC was worth $1M in 2020 it wouldn't be gaining $2500 per week linearly.  Maybe $200 per week initially and closer to $10K per week near the end.

Based on what.  That would be a velocity of 8.5 which is simply unheard of in any economy.

Trying this again.  Have some sanity checks to prevent orders when quotes become stale.

Well Bitcoin isn't going to change.  It is a social contract.  The contract said nothing about price fixing against gold.  Still if you can figure out a way to do it in a decentralized manner then go ahead but I think you will find that is pretty tough.  Remember each node needs to deterministicly reach the same conclusion at the same time, always or you will introduce permanent forks.  That is a pretty massive problem to solve.

Making a gold back virtual currency which is centralized is trivially easy.  Spend a couple hours of thinking about it and you likely will realize it may be impossible to do it decentralized.

While the fee structure needs to be revisted your belief that each input/output is 1KB is wrong.  Most tx are below 1KB.  A (2 input, 2 output) is usually around 440 bytes.  It varies slightly based on signature but no 2 in, 2 is anywhere near 4KB.

http://blockchain.info/tx/e51a0e55e5ca93ddef247a8fc31df0138e3837450fc03ef4bc7db741514573f7

http://blockchain.info/tx/47447cccaefd20aaf89e0365157556c6a1bb254ebecac67d0fe6c69dcacfdc56

http://blockchain.info/tx/9299451d48e9c93703ed5acdc97058dc3a4230238f3ae1f263a25799c59c473d

Update:
I made the call to suspend new purchases.  We don't like to rely on MtGox and use other exchanges to liquidated acquired coins however the spread between exchanges has grown.  This indicates an uncertainty on where MtGox will open.  bitstamp has dropped to $134 vs $141 MtGox last price.  Without solid price discovery we would be taking too much risk accepting new orders.
If MtGox fails to open in the next hour I will redirect the pricing engine to bitstamp and open using their quotes.

It is right on the withdraw page for MtGox.  How could you miss it?

To the OP BTC-E isn't used by the experienced traders.  It lacks sufficiently good methods to move large amounts of fiat (our company has needs to clear $200K+ per week off exchanges and I am sure a company like bitpay needs double that or more).

Also not sure where you got $99 from (maybe looking at EUR price).  BTC-E shows $130 now.  It hit a peak of $149 and has been trading downward since MtGox closed.  I am not saying Bitcoin hasn't come too far too fast (it may have) but your BTC-E angle is just a red herring.  A correction won't kill Bitcoin it has momentum way beyond the current exchange rate.  In time more sophisticated methods will be developed that allow merchants to hedge themselves (partially or fully) in real time while remaining completely in the crypto world.

Still a higher exchange rate is important.  It means the value of the money supply is worth more, it means the market is deeper, it means larger players can enter without splashing all the water out of the pool.  For any significant commerce to happen (i.e. > $1B in goods & services exchanged for BTC daily) the price would need to be much higher (say >$1000 per BTC).  Slower is probably better but nobody can control the market and between any two points it is essentially a random walk.

That is why most miners join mining pools.   Most pools have >1TH/s and will find a few blocks a day.  Even a bad stretch might only mean finding one block every other day.  Now you don't make any more (and some pools charge fees so you make slightly less) but it does reduce the variance.  Essentially the miners are pooling resources and when a block is found they "split" it.  Exactly how they split it depends on the algorithm the pool used but it all evens out in the end.

So using your calculator stats it is something like this
pool mining: 0.25 BTC per day (minus fees)
vs
solo mining: ~1% chance per day to solve entire block worth 25 BTC

I think you are trying to over think this.  You just deposit cash at Bank Of America.  Period.  Nothing else.

It probably is just best for you to make an account and just see for yourself.  You make an account on bitfloor, click on deposit, enter the amount you want to deposit and it will give you exact instructions on how to deposit cash at bank of america.  If that is still confusing well ... you probably shouldn't be trading bitcoins.

None of the above.  You take cash (as in the paper form of currency) to a bank of america and make a deposit. You don't need a BofA account.

No unless you just want to do some incredibly boring gambling.  It doesn't make sense at 4GH/s (probably not at 14 GH/s).  With 400 MH/s there is a very good chance you will give up before ever finding a block.  With 400 MH/s on average you will find one block every 28 months however that is just an average a particular block taking 400% isn't that uncommon.

Hopefully alt-coin developers take note of the lessons learned.  Or wait never mind there is no innovation to make a better coin they are just weak "I want to be richz" attempts.  Well someday someone will try to make a superior coin and hopefully they spend 6-12 months studying bitcoin to actually make a better coin.

Well that isn't exactly true.  It is possible the inclusion of the dust input lowers the priority making it low priority and thus mandating the min mandatory fee.  While improvement in coin selection is a good thing each input uses roughly 200 bytes.  You can't include many dust outputs without increasing the tx size.   Merely removing one or two dust outputs from the UXTO every couple days is like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.  A single martingale SD player can generate a thousand or more new dust outputs in an hour or so.

There is no realistic reason why someone would need to send an amount less than the min fee.  I mean it is like mailing a penny to someone (at a cost of 46 pennies).  That small limitation would make the UXTO more efficient (a higher % of the outputs in the UXTO will actually be used in a future tx).  Note I am not saying coin selection shouldn't improve and priority should take into account uspent output reduction but something bigger is needed.

Because dust have a unique cost.  They likely will never be spent.  They just remain part of the UXTO forever.  So more dust is continually being produced but none (or very little) is being used in new tx.  Eventually on a long enough timeline the UXTO (pruned database) will run into hundreds of TBs.  It makes Bitcoin far less scalable than if the UXTO remained spendable outputs.

Bitfinex disappears, gets hacked, or gets "hacked" resulting in a 100.000000% loss?

Note I am not saying they are shady but that is the "downside".  Interest earned is meaningless if you never actually get it.

It may have been designed that way but then the creators crippled it by using parameters which make is ~14,000x less memory hard then the default settings.  An Litecoin ASIC is more than possible.  The value of mining will need to be much higher but that was also true of Bitcoin.  Nobody was talking BTC ASICs when the Bitcoin exchange rate was $3 either.