I have said almost all I need to say in regards to getting women on board with btc, except just one more thing:

My comments regarding the pron ads are within the larger context of cleaning up the forums. I acknowledge that removing a single text ad won't change anything about women's participation here.

I do think people understand my views and are willing to acknowledge that they may have some validity. Thank you all for adding to the discussion.

Thanks. I appreciate the tone and spirit of your post. I would like to address your assertion here:


First, I cannot believe that porn ALWAYS helps new technology. That is a very strong statement. I seriously doubt it influenced the light bulb or gasoline engine, just to name a couple things.

But in a spirit of honest inquiry I read the article you linked. I then located the actual source document used. It was an essay written in 1996 by a lawyer. He makes the general case you outline here. He has some books he referenced at the bottom of his article but I did not locate those. Here's the essay:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v49/no1/johnson.html

Frankly I'm not going to believe what he's saying without more research into his sources. I also find it interesting that his paper was written in 1996 yet nobody else has come forth with similar research.

In my search I located an interesting thread on snopes.com about the vhs vs. betamax issue. Here is what snopes had to say:

"Porn was predominantly put into VHS format because customers were already favoring that format, for all the familiar reasons (longer tapes, non-proprietary players, etc.).

Realistically, if the formats had been runnning neck-and-neck, why would producers of video material (porn or otherwise) have eliminated half their potential market right off the bat by opting to make their products available in only one format?

- snopes"


I agree.


Lord knows I am all for toleration. But it has to be applied across the board and in both directions. Toleration applied in one direction only is not toleration. In other words, when somebody has a legitimate complaint, such as mine about the porm ad in relation to increasing btc adoption among women, shouldn't my view be tolerated? Shouldn't others tolerate it when I'm saying something they don't want to hear? (especially when it could have a very positive impact on that one thing we all believe in, btc?)

That's good to know, thank you, but that has not been  my experience here.


It makes me very sad to think that, as a woman, I have to keep defending my objection to porn advertisements, as if I'm some sort of anomaly. Regardless, my question remains: where are the women? Why aren't they here? MIGHT it have anything to do with the issues I mentioned?

Two very practical examples:

1. There is NO way I would recommend to my female relatives or friends to come here to learn more about btc. No frickin' way. It is just not a safe place for women to be.

2. I won't recommend btc to them either, not at this time. There is no easy way for them to get into the btc market, and no easy way for them to store btc safely. Crimony my client still crashes regularly and I haven't figured out why. I would be embarassed to tell my friends to download it. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for it. But I can't recommend it to my female friends at this time.

Having said these things, I believe in the idea behind btc and that is why I am still here. But I know I'm unusual.

Boards are as abrasive as the board mods allow them to be. Take Tim Ferris, for example. He has a very active blog. It's not unusual for each of his posts to receive over 100 comments. All of them are respectful, even when they express an opposing view they are respectful. It's because he has a policy that everybody understands and is enforced. Trolls are removed immediately and disrespect is not tolerated.

I really does go back to the leadership. They set the tone.


I am only expressing how I feel when I see such things. I have reason to believe my feelings are shared by a broad segment of women, the specific segment that would make excellent btc adopters. Plus I made no comment on the person's posts, only his sig. As I said before, the current "strategy" for getting women to adopt btc is not working. Perhaps it's time for a new strategy, one that incorporates the needs and desires of the target demographic.

Thank you.  

Hmmmm no I don't agree that people have to tolerate things they don't like. In the case of these forums and btc, it is obvious women don't like them and have not "tolerated" them. That's why they're not here and why they haven't adopted btc. That's the whole reason for this thread. "How do we get women on board?" People get on board with things they like, they don't get on board with things they merely "tolerate." Women, in particular, get on board when they feel safe. Intelligent, business oriented women who have families, who are the ones I presume the btc leadership would prefer to have first as opposed to uneducated women, won't hang around here in droves because it's not safe. And btc is not safe to hold. There is no "off the shelf" product that makes btc easy to use and very safe to carry.

These are the facts about intelligent, educated, business oriented women who also have or want children. I'm not talking about party girls here. You are of course free to disagree with me. But keep in mind one thing: the current btc marketing strategy (if it can even be called that, if there is even such a thing, yet which this board plays a part) has NOT attracted women by and large. Perhaps a change of strategy is in order. Isn't this also free market - realizing something needs to change because a HUGE segment of the market is not participating, then making the necessary change to bring in that segment?

I am a woman who was drawn to btc for ideological reasons. I found this board a few months ago. I have to say that this board is not an example of a community that values the input of women. There is a tremendous amount of misogyny here. So these forums are not safe for women, not at all. Women can't come here to be educated without being offended or verbally harassed. For example, there is somebody here who has, as his sig, a site for bitporn. Do the board mods really believe that women want to see that sort of thing? Do they think intelligent, business oriented women don't notice or care about that?

For myself, when I put an ad for my accounting services in exchange for btc, I got asked twice to do somebody's accounting homework. Another troll asked if the photo on my homepage was of me naked. Neither of these comments were taken down by the board admin, and they should have been.

It starts with the leadership. If the leaders of the btc community do not want women here, which definitely seems to be the case, then the tone of the boards will be anti woman.

Also, the average woman won't know how to store btc safely. Remember one thing for women: we want safety. If/when btc becomes safe to store and carry, we'll be on board in droves. Until that time, we won't touch it, not in any real way.

The boards need to be a safe place to learn and ask questions, and btc needs to be safely stored without needing an IT degree to figure it out. Getting those two things in line will go along way to attracting intelligent women to btc.

I read through the legal stuff at the paypal site. From what I can tell, buyers are not eligible for "purchase protection," aka paypal dispute resolution, aka chargebacks, when purchasing bitcoin. It seems to me that bitcoin falls under the "intangible items," the "items equivelant to cash," or the "personal payments" categories. When using "personal payments" the seller has to chose the "personal" tab.

Speaking to the buyer: "PayPal will generally not find in your favor if you escalate a Dispute to a Claim for an item which is not eligible for PayPal Purchase Protection."

Reference:

Paypal User Agreement, 13.3.

Based on what I've read on these forums, Paypal is a no go for sellers, but based on what I read at the paypal site, I'm not sure why that is. If sellers choose the 'personal payments" option, aren't they protected? Does paypal not enforce it's own rules?

Point taken. 

A credit card balance, alone, is a "credit" balance.

When buying lunch with your credit card:

Debit the Meals & Entertainment expense account
Credit the credit card liability account

When you make a payment to the credit card account:

Debit the credit card liability account for the amount of the payment
Credit the checking account for the amount of the payment

Increases to income are always credits. The corresponding entry is a debit, usually to either cash or accounts receivable.

It's counterintuitive... people are so used to seeing their bank statements say debit for withdrawal and credit for addition, and they don't realize that this is an accounting of the bank's ledger, not their own ledger. Like I said initially, it may not really be that important. If I was in charge of the client terminology, I'd call additions "Additions" and withdrawals "Withdrawals" or "Subtractions." But that's just me.  

The reason for the confusion is that it's double entry accounting (each trans has two sides, a debit and a credit) plus we're talking about two different entities, a bank and an individual. So two transactions that each have two sides = confusion!  

Rule of thumb: when discussing debits and credits, entities are mirrors of one another. As a simple example: when I send an invoice to somebody, it's a credit to my Accounts Payable account and a debit to an expense account, but it's a debit to their Accounts Receivable account and a credit to their sales account. The transactions mirror each other. I call this "the mirror principle" and I honestly believe I thought of this myself. I've never read it in any book or website, but it holds true for every single accounting transaction between two entities.

If I hand somebody cash, it's a credit to my "petty cash" because I've lowered the balance on my books, but on that person's books it's a debit to "petty cash" because their cash balance has been raised.

So back to the bank example: bank statements call withdrawals debits because from their pov it IS a debit.... when they hold money for you, it's a liability to them since they owe you that money, they're holding it on your behalf. When you withdraw some, they no longer owe you that amount, so they debit the liability account that has your name on it. It now has a lower balance that it did before. Same for when you add money, they call it a credit because they now hold more money on your behalf... the liability balance has been raised, so it's a credit on their books.

.... but on your books it's a debit because your cash balance is raised. Remember the mirror!

It's quite possible that this is not really all that important, but I just thought I'd share a quick observation about the client....

I notice that it refers to additions as "credits". This is not correct. Anything that increases an asset (checking account, savings account, investment accont, inventory, securities, car purchase, home purchase, etc) is a debit. Decreases to assets are credits.

If needed I can explain why. But that's the correct terminology from an accounting standpoint.

Just my .02BTC.

THAT WORKED! Thank you!!!! 

If you don't want to read the links, that's fine, but I've stated my position and also supported it. It's not a gut feeling. I cannot continue this conversation since we're not playing equally - I have answered your questions, but many of my questions you have not answered.

haha yea me too.


It's basic microeconomics 101. It's not advanced stuff, just took microecon two semesters ago and learned those concepts then, then came across those links as I researched my answers here.

If you don't want to read them, that's OK. But I have already explained the concepts in a nutshell. The italicised words can be referenced via the links. I think it would be helpful if you read the links, but like I said if you don't want to then that's OK too.

I realize reading economic theory is probably not on anybody's list of things to do on a weekend....  

but if you do, then you may know my answer to your questions.

If you took one of my ebooks and tried to sell it without my permission, then I have the right to redress the situation via the judicial system.

As I stated above, all IP laws do is to take something that would otherwise be a public good, and turn it into a private good. This is to avoid the free rider problem.

For argument's sake, let's remove IP laws and turn all intellectual creations into public goods. (please see links above so we're using the same definitions for the italicized terms) What then is your suggestion to avoid the free rider problem?

I liked your analogy very much actually. My conclusion from it is that without certain protections, people in my position are subject to the free rider problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem) Your analogy creates a net loss for society, not only for us individually. Neither of us can sustain the creation of lemonade so society loses since they can't get lemonade.

Speaking in terms of economic theory: my view is that IP laws attempt to take intellectual creations that would otherwise be public goods, and turns them into private goods.

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

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

Without IP laws, intellectual creations would remain public goods and are then subject to the free rider problem. This means that the creators of those goods would not have an incentive to continue creating them, and society would lose since it would have fewer inventions, etc.

Without IP laws, how do you suggest addressing the free rider problem?