Never head of the New Hampshire thing but it sounds interesting.

The problem is that bitcoin is not a social system and isn't designed to solve all problems. Bitcoin solves one major problem only: it has a fixed supply and so the total money supply cannot be manipulated by anyone. That is a great thing, but a social system it is none.

Why would somebody want to buy a forum account. I'm curious.

Just an additional thought but why is it necessary to get bitcoiners together physically like this. This is lilke Finshaggys idea. Bitcoin is a digital, internet based currency. Why not have an internet based community. If we all get together we might not like each other. If we all start living together it could be worse.

It actually has been done before. The cult of Scientology took over the town of Clearwater Florida way back when. They didn't need to become "sovereign" exactly, they just bribed all the local officials and took them into the cults service. They therefore maintain de facto sovereignty over the town. They called the process by which they took the town over "Operation Normandy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Normandy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearwater,_Florida#Scientology

"This forum used to be the majority of bitcoin users a few years ago, but now we are a minority group and that is probably for the best Smiley"

Oh, I didn't realize that. Where are all the cool kids hanging out? I'm outta here.

"Most, in their naivety, fail in that and make a huge loss (money+time wasted). But guys, make sure to advertise those rich bitcoiners and make people believe they can become rich too with Bitcoin!!!"

On what basis do you say that. I haven't met many on here who have made huge losses on bitcoin. For that to happen you would have to have many coins stolen (which occasionally does happen) or buy high and sell low.  This is not most peoples experience. Anybody who holds is laughing. Many people on here have benefited greatly from bitcoins huge rise in price. I bought at £ 3 - 4. Its now £60. Not bad huh? Any other asset class gone up 2000% in a few years? Is that boring? Really?

I've often wondered whether this forum could move the market. That is, is we all got together and sold or bought at the same time could be influence the price. On the evidence of this thread, that is doubtful.

Sweet. Thanks for the help, appreciated.

"The greedy never yell "Let them eat cake!"  At least not the ones that matter. "

I'm a close observer of American politics and I see the "let them eat cake" attitude all the time.

O'REILLY: "Reagan was not a confrontational guy, didn't like confrontation, much rather be your pal ... doesn't want to get involved with the really nasty stuff, the tough stuff, and that's what racial politics is -- nasty and tough. ... It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period. I mean I know people from Haiti, from the Ukraine from eh, -- we got callers all day long on The Factor. From Romania. You come here, you get educated, you work hard, you'll make a buck. You get addicted, you don't know anything, you'll be poor. But Reagan did not want to confront the issue. And that's the truth about it."

And:

 "And that exploded during the Clinton years, with all the R&D that companies invested in the 80s you had the technological revolution where a lot of people made a lot of money. But not the poor people who are ill-educated or addicted. They didn't make any money because they never will make any money because you can't compete in that circumstance. You cannot compete if you are addicted and ill-educated. All right."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/06/16/oreilly-irresponsible-and-lazy-thats-what-pover/131278

Sean Hannity had his, shall we call it, let them eat beans thesis:

    "I don't believe people are going to bed hungry. ... For, instance I have friends of mine who eat rice and beans all the time. Beans protein, rice. Inexpensive. You can make a big pot of this for a week for negligible amounts of money and you can feed your whole family.

    Look, you should have vegetables and fruit in there as well, but if you need to survive you can survive off it. It's not ideal but you could get some cheap meat and throw in there as well for protein. There are ways to live really, really cheaply."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/04/sean-hannitys-poor-friends-eat-rice-and-beans.html

As for Limbaugh:

"And in many cases, speaking bluntly, the people that don't do well only have themselves to blame. And those who have no control over themselves are the ones we help.

Limbaugh's dismissiveness is nothing new. In August 2009, he told a caller concerned about the cost of treating his broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In February 2010, Limbaugh suggested the uninsured eat applesauce if they couldn't afford dentures. He also advised people to pay for their doctor visits in cash instead of using insurance.

The American right yell let them eat cake (or beans,or applesauce as the case may be) all the time.

"On btct the shares will be switched to active mining ones once it gets approval.

 Also Liquidity is better on btct so I'd wait till the approval goes through."

Really? So I don't need to do anything then? Is that right? There's a whole thing at the start of this thread about what to do to get them transfered.

I've enjoyed the discussion but I'd like people to revisit the original topic. Who's in it for themselves and hoards, who believes in it and spends a few coin?

Its because a lot of new people are getting into bitcoin. Its difficult for newer people to get them.

I take it your a day trader crumbs. Sounds like it. How's that going, supposing I'm right in my observation?

I have a slight problem.

I'm an AMC-PT shareholder and I want to transfer these shares for the better ones. However, do I need a bitfunder account to make this happen. The thing is, I can't get google 2-factor authentication working and my bitfunder account says you can't transfer shares without it.

Also, how would I transfer shares from BTC-TC to bitfunder?

Thanks in advance, including for your patience.

"I was being sincere.  I do not want *anyone* to go broke."

Yeah I know. I was being sincere when I said it was nice that you would say that. It is.

"Grieving change" - yup. Since 2008 and the devastating credit crunch there is indeed much to grieve.

"Let's look at inflation rates while US dollar was *on* the gold standard."

Thats fine I'm not an advocate of the gold standard. I'm aware that the dollar, along with the pound lost 90% of thier value over the 20th century. The pound lost 25% of its value in 2008. That's why I want an alternative monetary system like bitcoin available to me.

Its not true that savers were universally reviled. If we are using adages are evidence:

"A penny saved is a penny earned" Benjamin Franklin

"Waste not want not"

Save a penny, spend a pound.

No man's credit is ever as good as his money.
Edgar Watson Howe

Save for a rainy day.

He who does not economize will have to agonize"-Confusius

Debt is the worst poverty. (Thomas Fuller)


"You say "rational self interest," i say greed.  Why quibble over words if they mean the same?"

Just making the point that there is a reason why people are driven to take risks in the prevailing climate. Its not just some emotion.

"But that's happening already!  You simply wish for this competition to take place on more favorable terms for Bitcoin.  I don't blame you -- i do too.  The market is deciding, i'm betting with some and against other traders on the outcome of the fight, and on the results of every round."

I really hope so but bitcoin won't be a real alternative unless people spend their coin to stimulate the real bitcoin economy which is what this thread is about. The big irony is that I'm actually arguing for greater bitcoin spending while you seem to be more of the side of saving (or is that evil hoarding). That's pretty ironic given the rest of our exchange.

I've enjoyed it though.

"I'm not sure if i'm reading you correctly, but it seems that you're mistakenly lumping currencies together with investment tools.  Money is not an investment tool.  It was never intended for hoarding -- that's one of the reasons deflationary economy is considered a "bad thing."  I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

1) Traditionally one could save or "hoard" money. Paper money was backed by gold, in the United States this was even the case until the 1970s. Until 1971 the dollar was convertible with gold and this curbed potential excesses of monetary policy and meant that the dollar was a currency worth saving with. The benefits of saving money were many, one of the most pressing being provision for old age. Saving is a traditional virtue and its a shame to see it being denigrated as "hoarding". Saving is a traditional method of improving one's station in life, safeguarding against hard times, moving from the working to middle class, and providing a comfortable life in old age. R.I.P saving, I guess.

2) Not everyone considers deflation a bad thing. Its a good thing for the prudent and for consumers.

"I hope i'm preaching to the chorus when i say that "saving" is *the opposite* of investing.  Investing is *spending*.  "Use it or lose it," that's how money is meant to work.  Not "use it or put it under your mattress."

Actually no. I made the point that today you have to invest in order to "save"; that traditional saving is worthless and therefore you must speculate to preserve any wealth that you have which is denominated in fiat currency. Also; "that's how money is supposed to work"? Since 1971 maybe. For thousands of year previously, one function of money was supposed to be as a store of value.

"Let me get this out of the way first: i hope everything works out for you, and i hope you've considered conventional investment strategies & rejected them."

Thanks, that's quite nice. Things aren't working out that well in most areas of my life but don't fear; I'm no fool when it comes to investing. Conventional strategies? I lost quite a bit on equities if that is what you mean. I'm increasingly turning to hard assets like bullion, bitcoin and fine wine for reasons to do with monetary policy on which I have already dilated.

"Human greed?  Love for easy money?  Slow news days?  Take your pick."

Nope, reason. Rational self interest drives people to riskier investments, regardless of their natural appetite for risk, in sheer desperation to protect their hard earned wealth from an iniquitous monetary policy. That's why when in Britain the National Savings and Investments released an issue of inflation linked certificates the public went mad for them and they had to be withdrawn before they could hope to meet demand.

We are not just talking about what bitcoin is but what it might be. I bought into it and hold it as an investment but I do want it to become more. I want competition in the currency. I want central banks to have to compete with bitcoin and let the market decide what they want to use. I want to use a currency that can't be endlessly inflated and devalued. To make this happen, I need to get over my aversion to spending and contribute something to the real bitcoin economy, on whose shoulders that vision rests. That is what this thread is about.

Peace.

"I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning.  "Over monetized fiat-based economy" has nothing to do with Bitcoin value (not sure what you mean by "over-monetised", but my guess is "too much paper money"?  What would "the right amount" be?)"

I couldn't say what the "right" amount would be in terms of a value because there is so much theoretical fiat money in existence that only a systems-analysis perspective could even approach the question. In general terms the "right" amount of money would maintain price stability and the value of the money (in my opinion) and would see the price of most goods and commodities being set through the equilibration of supply and demand. That is not the case. Prices of government bonds (above all), equities, gold, bitcoin, housing (in many places including the UK) are all going up, even though the underlying economy is wretched, as the wealthy and corporations desperately search from somewhere to stash their mountains of fiat cash. This is a demand, of sorts, but only one of speculation rather than valuing the underlying asset.

Of all these bubbles John Quiglin said of bitcoin: "Bitcoin is perhaps the finest example of a pure bubble". The over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with the bitcoin bubble: people are driven into exotic investments by inflation and low interest rates. If inflation is higher than the bank interest rate then what to you do? Invest. Accept risk. You might as well accept risk, even if you are naturally risk averse, because inflation will destroy the value of your savings anyway. That's why I got into bitcoin. So the over-monetized fiat economy has everything to do with it.

"For your interpretation to be valid, Bitcoin value would have to be (# of dollars in circulation) / (# of coins in circulation) * (fudge factor).  This is obviously not, and has never been, the case."

No it wouldn't. My point actually concerns the effect that ultra-loose monetary policy, and the accumulation of vast concentrations of wealth in a few hands, has on peoples investment decisions. Look at any broadsheet newspaper in the UK. They are always going on about the next big alternative investment. Wine, stamps, antiques, you name it. Why? You can't get decent bank interest. You have to take risks just to preserve your purchasing power. In this climate it is no surprise that a bubble has formed around bitcoin. There is an insatiable demand for novel investments and thats why the Winklevoss twins are getting into it. The American rich will likely take a close look at bitcoin.

The idea of buying bitcoins right now isn't because its better, its because there might be some "good" to doing so. This is a trickly one. In a market based society one tends to make decision based on which way the material incentives flow. As a result one's moral sense can wither somewhat. You see this in relation to illegal file sharing. I once saw someone argue that you "should" choose to pay for a certain product. Another person reacted angrily, saying that to do so when you could get it for free is insane. The idea of doing something for reasons other than immediate personal gain seemed to him to be irrational. However the idea in occasionally spending the occasional bitcoin is to help the fledgeling economy, perhaps because you believe in bitcoin as something other than investment.

I'm not preaching its just something to consider. I couldn't say that benevolence is my greatest virtue.

There is no meaning. All is suffering.

Arklan: cool

romerun: I'm quite tired so I though you said "I have 10K+ bitcoins as of now". Woke me up rather.

That is partially but not entirely true. Pure speculative forces can make the price skyrocket. Already they have done so. The increase in the price of bitcoin from $0.25 to $100 had nothing to do with the expansion of the real bitcoin economy but only concerned speculation. Because bitcoin exists in parallel to a dramatically over monetized fiat based economy it is entirely possible for money to pour into bitcoins as a novel asset class. In an over monetised world, bubbles are the norm.

I didn't say that I had the attitude of never using bitcoins I said I partially share it. I'm tight with fiat money so I'm in no hurry to spend bitcoins I don't have to.