The gap has narrowed to a dollar.

Ever since MtGox and Dwolla parted ways there has been a consistent $5 gap between the spot prices at MtGox and CampBX that has not been eliminated through arbitrage. Apparently the market has set a $5/BTC premium on trading at MtGox. Doesn't this mean the MtGox price can no longer be considered a reflection of the real market rate and that it's no longer useful as a guide in determining the retail cost of goods sold in BTC?

Bitcoin isn't like a new product or technology, but a way of doing things. It's more like a culture. AFAIK there is no such thing as a "culture adoption curve." Right now it's very counter-cultural and some are calling it a fad. In some circles it's very fashionable and in vogue and in others it looks silly, mawkish, even outdated.

Of course it transcends culture in some ways, but not many. It will only reach people who value what this way of doing things has to offer.

Hello,

I believe I had my main confusion about Bitcoin cleared up in this thread and am now ready to engage in coherent discussions on the subject. I've owned some Bitcoin for a few days now and believe it's possible I may never transfer it back to a fiat currency. These are exciting times and I eagerly anticipate taking part in the wider discussion.

-Mickey

I assume this is the main technical talking point regarding discussions about scalability?

I see, thank you. You're right it is making a great deal of sense now.

Yeah, somehow I got the impression that the fee went to the miner who originally created the BTC you wanted to send, so you can imagine how confusing that would be, lol.

There's still much to be curious about, like the relationship between the quantity of transactions awaiting confirmation and the cost of solving a block.

Oh, I see. So the fees don't go to "the miners" per se, they go to future miners. Potentially all the existing miners could decide to give up on the whole enterprise, but the currency could still keep going because a new crowd of miners could come in and reap the fees of transactions waiting to be confirmed. That's really very fascinating and interesting. Thank you so much for helping me understand it.

  You're talking about the price of Bitcoin relative to the dollar-- relative to a weakening fiat currency. Think about that. You're not actually talking about the price of Bitcoin in terms of something people would actually want to buy.

Once we start pricing Bitcoin in terms of gold, other commodities, or in terms of a consumer price index, volatility isn't even a meaningful subject.

So when I send BTC to someone and add a fee to make it go faster, is that the moment in time the miner receives the fee? Or are you saying that the miner already received the fee when the block was solved?

Is there perhaps a diagram that shows, upon creation of a block, where the fee goes and at what time?

Because any time someone has something that receives payments, they have something that can be sold, even if it is not nominally worth any money. The price would be determined by the present value of whatever estimated future payments might be received, like an annuity or income from a business. But it sounds like what you're saying is that's not how it works. In order to receive any payments after solving a block, they must solve another block? Even so, does the miner not then have an asset that receives income, which can be bought or sold?

I've been researching and still quite can't get my head around the time series of transaction fees as an income stream. Does it necessarily terminate at some point or can a miner in theory be paid transaction fees into perpetuity? Can the rights to these fees be bought and sold like marketable securities?

If I understand it correctly, once a miner finds a block, he or she in some sense owns the block, or owns the destination address for transaction fees. What is that called? Is there a market for that property?