The reason is exceptionally simple: I do not agree to being governed by anyone without my contractually arranged explicit consent and so I do not and ever will agree to voting. The whole concept to me is repugnant and I could never understand how anyone could think they may force me or anyone else to do something or follow some rules just because they took a vote and some majority of some people somewhere voted so.


My moderator's privileges extend only to two sections: Bitcoin discussions and Economics.

I didn't even read the paper but I already know I'd mostly likely agree with the above poster. (well except with the very last sentence  )

Mike Hearn I appreciate your coding work but man do I hope you never end up in any position of influence or decision making because your convoluted worldviews actually scare me. I can't even understand how a coder, working with logic and math everyday, can fall victim to such an obvious and blatant fallacy as is the belief in a democratic system as the system we should strive to improve and implement for our benefit. That just baffles me.  


I apologize for my off topic post but I was very concerned with Mike for a long time now and I just couldn't hold it back anymore and had to get it off my chest. I just can't help it but psychopathic statists scare me.

Are plugins once peer reviewed actually secure?

Not going to happen.

Just look at hushmail.com and how they were dealt with. As far as I know they did in fact offer actual embedded encryption meaning a user didn't need to do anything outside of merely logging in and sending an email to another hushmail user in order to have his correspondence encrypted. And while this still holds true for the contents of an email account they were since forced by LEAs (I believe at least that this is the case) to add algos that spy on emails in the moment before they are encrypted and sent out.

The only way this will become an industry standard is if some rouge companies around the world like Mega, not in anyway connected with the US, decide to take on and resist huge pressure by various states grasping for power and engage in a constant legal battle of survival and you can call me a pessimist but I don't see many people lining up to voluntarily seek a beating like Kim Dotcom is even though I sincerely wish there were..

I give the store 5/5 starts from me. I ordered an item 1. 9. 2013 and got it today, shipped here to EU. I got what I ordered and it works as advertised and I'm very happy. 


Yep, that's about the only major flaw I could see with bitcoinstore.com but it didn't really effect because I was willing to spend some extra time and thoroughly search their site for the item I needed.

The same way as one would attempt to monitor a cash only business: accounting books + voluntary ID gathering + honesty . Other than this there's no way to realistically monitor who sends what to whom in bitcoins.

Not to mention a way cheaper way to distribute info.

Hey Ron,

It's great to see information about Bitcoin spread in important circles so I'm happy you included it in your report. Although you seem to have a good grasp on Bitcoin I'd still like to give you a couple of suggestions on how you could improve your report. First, call it Bitcoin for the system and bitcoins for the currency, bit-coins is a tell-tale sign that you're really new to Bitcoin and you might face a credibility problem. Second "to become a bit-coin merchant, a broker works with a third party payment gateway to receive and send payments." is confusing and I'm not sure exactly if it can even apply to Bitcoin. There are no payment gateways, just peers in a peer to peer network. All a merchant really needs is the Bitcoin software, either on their own system or hosted by a third party.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to give a copy of the entire section on Bitcoin to someone reputable within this community for a proof reading in order to avoid such inaccuracies/confusion. But if that doesn't work for you here are two links that do a great job at correcting common misconceptions:
http://blog.bitinstant.com/blog/2012/7/5/a-business-primer-on-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-erik-voorhees.html
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/common-misconceptions-about-bitcoin-a-guide-for-journalists/

And if you have any questions or need help with anything don't hesitate to ask.

Even this isn't true because there are some scenarios where a "sudden bout of deflation" is exactly what is needed. One or two that I can think of would be in the case of say the hurricane Katrina devastating a large region. It would be in the best interest of the people of such a region to drastically reduce their consumption and start intensive saving in order to accumulate enough capital to rebuild everything that got destroyed and it would be perfectly ok if that meant that some non life sustaining businesses went under. Same goes for a whole sector of the economy one day realizing it's bankrupt.. in order for the economy to remain healthy, the people who lost their jobs would need to drastically cut back on their consumption until they could find other employment even if that meant for the broader economy to focus on the essential businesses.


Price deflation all else being equal just means that there is less demand and there are plenty of cases where less demand is the perfectly logical course of action which will ultimately lead to people in general being better off.

$1,2 - $1,3M source: 30day http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_trades.html

bitstamp's monthly "sales" is 1,3M if you want to treat them the same as mtgox

I must say I'm reversing my perception of him..

Kinda wish I didn't buy 2 oz in mid December before the correction and bought BTC instead :s Btw I bought BTC too just worth a lot less than 2oz of Au.

^ this makes perfect sense.

ouch 

Oh I see, the problem is actually that you don't understand what the meaning of "being backed by" is.. Tell me, can I cash in my 1btc or 1gram of gold and get utility as ideal medium of exchange out of them? And how does utility as ideal medium of exchange look like?

valued properties != backing, mkay?

Example: Pirateat40 posted his announcement that he was going to shut down his ponzi on a Saturday afternoon (GMT+1) which caused a huge reaction in the market.

Exchanges *should* do what they *want* to do. But if their goal is to maximize profits then they should do what their customers want them to do and market conditions permit them to do.

So I can cash 1 BTC and get some amount of math?

So you tell me "not exactly" and then you repeat my words? Huh?