Can trade with Dwolla, bitcoin, and paypal.

I noticed a few websites out there that will allow you to purchase paysafecards but not sure how reliable they are.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/engadget-primed-bitcoin/

http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/economy-market-trends/bitcoins-surge-value-could-be-sign-speculative-bub/nXHCd/

Also mentioned on his 4/9 hour 2 podcast near the 17 minute mark.

http://www.clarkhoward.com/Player/101938571/

http://feeds.clarkhoward.com/~r/TheClarkHowardShowPodcast/~5/uqyyGoVFz8s/clark_howard_040913_102265961.mp3

http://knightnews.com/2013/03/move-over-cash-hello-bitcoin/

http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/economy-market-trends/bitcoin-alternative-world-currency-becoming-popula/nW5sZ/

I've also been told it was discussed on his March 27th show hour 2 near the 18min mark.  Can anyone quote or share the link?

From a libertarian & bitcoin perspective, should I be contributing to my 401k or investing post tax?  Money doesn't really tempt me, so having access to it outside of a 401k vs inside of one doesn't make a difference.  In the past, I've felt it smarter to use my 401k because of the matching & pretax growth.  But now I worry that there could be smarter investments outside of my 401k options (like bitcoin or even my house).  I'm also worried taxes on my 401k may increase a lot more than I anticipated.

Any personal preferences toward 401k vs post tax investments?  Thanks.

Imagine Satoshi coded bitcoin so that the first miner would receive the only bitcoin ever to be created & it could be infinitely divisible.  Of course, he would be the first miner, so he receives the only bitcoin.  Just like he distributed early bitcoins by convincing people to run the software, he could have convinced them to download the software & he'd send them .01 BTC.  Eventually, enough micro-bitcoins would be in circulation that people could buy them from others instead of asking Satoshi.  Then you'd be at the same situation we are now.

The largest differences are inflation & transaction fees.  Inflation wouldn't exist because no more coins can ever be created.  People would understand transaction fees early on because miners would be more restrictive since the fees would support their mining costs.

It is easy to prove the reward model works since bitcoin uses that model.  But I don't see any reason someone couldn't try the other model out with a change to the protocol.  The owner of the first coin could even setup a website like bitcoin fountain to distribute the currency instead of keeping track of PMs & emails.  Would it be a slower distribution model?  Hard to say.  Is the reward model the main reason for bitcoin's success?  Hard to say.  But I'd personally prefer this coin if it was at the same popularity as bitcoin is now.

Any thoughts?  Could this work?  Does this alt coin already exist?  Has this been mentioned before?

PayPal Bans BitTorrent Friendly Hosting Provider PRQ

https://torrentfreak.com/paypal-bans-bittorrent-friendly-hosting-provider-prq-121224/

In the meantime PRQ is accepting Bitcoins and bank wire transfer while their Visa/Mastercard merchant account is being set up.

Single mention

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/15deyx/paypal_bans_bittorrent_friendly_hosting_provider/

Reddit discussion about the article.  Positive bitcoin comment is 2nd on the page.

Here's a link to a transcript of what Bob Costas said last night after halftime during the Cowboys/eagles game.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/03/nbcs_bob_costas_goes_on_gun_control_rant_about_nfl_players_murder-suicide.html

I couldn't disagree more with his opinion.  Apparently only guns kill people, not the people pulling the trigger.  I even did some research to see if I could find a single article comparing homicide rates in gun control countries vs others.  All I could find were articles that showed gun-related homicides as if that statistic should solidify anyone on the fence about gun control.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that outlawing guns will decrease gun-related violence.  But what I do want to see is if outlawing guns increases violence with other weapons.  After all, someone willing to kill someone else with a gun probably has no problems using a knife instead.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir here - at least for the most part.  But in response to a hot topic on reddit, I figured I'd give non-socialists a chance to answer.  I honestly believe reddit is composed of intelligent people, but I completely disagree when it comes to politics - especially economic policy - on that site.

The main reasoning from the top comment is that the rich hoard their money preventing it from being re-circulated into the economy.  But wouldn't that decrease the supply & increase demand aka making your money worth more?  Assuming making your money worth more is a bad thing ("then everyone would hoard!"), why is giving it to the government a good thing?  Am I the only skeptic that believes the government is just a bunch of talking heads that give tax revenue to their rich friends?  And even if the government perfectly reallocated money, what would be the point of working?  If I'm getting money from not working...I'm not going to work.

So the big question, why have higher taxes on the rich historically correlated to higher economic growth?

Edit:

Here's the link to the reddit comments http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11ok1e/overall_higher_taxes_on_the_rich_historically

Here's a link to the data http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm

I'm curious if you pay taxes because you are forced to or because you believe in the benefits it provides.  Also, I think this would be the first huge decision people would have to make if bitcoins became popular enough.  It would decide the fate of the government as we know it.

Really good article about money with specific mention of bitcoin.

http://www.goldmadesimplenews.com/gold/the-death-of-banks-%E2%80%93-and-the-future-of-money-7177/