What you also get from the report is just how connected all this stuff is with libertarian derp:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-roberts/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

does the merchant gain anything by paying employees in bitcoin rather than cash? Lets say that the merchant also earns bitcoins by selling some service or goods. I suppose the merchant would not have to convert the portion of pay they are paying employees in bitcoin to cash therefore there is no 1% loss on that portion. But are there any costs in general for paying employees with cash? Would a bitcoin only system make payroll easier for instance?

did he really think he was uncatchable?

would cost?

what would it be?

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution; I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution," Jefferson wrote. "I mean an additional article taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.

I think that is pretty good but it might allow for loopholes. I think a better approach would be make sure that the government had to actually tax money before it could spend it. in this way they couldn't borrow money and they also couldn't just create it themselves.

I think it would be possible to let government create their own money on the condition that it was all taxed back from circulation.

["Though Bitcoin payments are fast, they are not instantaneous. It typically takes over 10 minutes to clear a transaction, which must be recorded on a public ledger called the blockchain"]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1v29i3/in_response_to_7_things_bitcoin_cant_do/

"Though Bitcoin payments are fast, they are not instantaneous. It typically takes over 10 minutes to clear a transaction, which must be recorded on a public ledger called the blockchain"
Bitcoin is a protocol for money... it's a platform meant to be built on top of. That means in the future you will see things being built on top of it that will take transactions off the blockchain. For instance an exchange does this. When you buy dollars on mt gox you don't have to wait 10 minutes. The transaction is off the blockchain... it's instant. Additionally transactions can happen near instantly it just depends on the risk you are willing to take. A transaction will propagate across the network faster than 8 minutes but it won't be included in a block yet. If you are a company like newegg you can accept the transaction instantly because you aren't shipping the item immediately anyway . So many transactions could be done fast even without a layer on top of the protocol. One last thing....... when you buy with a credit card even though the transaction seems instantaneous the funds don't actually arrive to the merchant for a week or more later. When a bitcoin transaction is included in the block chain the funds have arrived. For merchants that is a clear win.
"Consumers can't unilaterally undo a Bitcoin transaction like they can a credit card payment. However, the Bitcoin protocol is being updated to better facilitate refunds initiated by the merchant."
The answer to this is related to my previous answer. A transaction is irreversible but that doesn't mean something can't be built on top. For instance if ebay wanted to accept bitcoins they could have users upload bitcoin funds and do transfers internally off the block chain. In this way they could control and reverse transactions. And as a side note.... it is in a merchants best interest to act in an honest manner. It is in a consumers best interest to act in a malicious manner. It makes more sense to have the burden of trust placed on customers rather than merchants because of these natural signals. A merchant has reviews. They need to keep a positive image to retain customers. Customers don't have reviews. It is in their best interest to defraud merchants. Why do people think that is okay? Also irreversible transactions allows for new business models that really couldn't be viable before. For instance the sale of virtual goods. If you tried to sell something like WoW gold on ebay the merchant easily gets scammed so it is not a viable business model. With bitcoin... transactions are irreversible and you can build things on top of the blockchain that can do reversals so it is the best of both worlds.
" Governments typically do not accept taxes in anything other than the official currency, but there are efforts to introduce bitcoin into the mix. E-Gov Link, for example, accepts bitcoins for parking tickets and other fees."
Well I don't see this one changing any time soon unfortunately. In a truly free market currencies would be allowed to compete with each other and a government should simply accept currencies at their current exchange rate and not give special privileges (the dollar is created by the Fed who are private).
"Though there are concerns about criminals using bitcoins to launder funds, the digital currency is a bad way to cover one's tracks. Since each transaction is recorded publicly, Bitcoin users are establishing a trail that anyone can follow"
For the average user this is probably true. However things are in the works like darkwallet... zerocoin. If bitcoin is allowed it essentially allows all alt coins so if there is an alt coin that is completely anonymous you would be able to buy it easily with bitcoin. Also there are "mixing" services where you can try to launder your coins but it is still somewhat traceable. The only way to move significant amounts of money into or out of bitcoin is through exchanges so if those are regulated then money laundering isn't exactly easy (I think that is a good thing right?) .
" Mortgages
A few homes have been listed for sale in bitcoins, but buyers must have the funds on hand. Regulatory issues and the volatility of Bitcoin's value preclude mortgages priced in the virtual currency"
Notice the keyword here "priced in the virtual currency" . You can simply not price it in the virtual currency but pay with it. Also to be technical bitcoin is considered a "digital currency" not a virtual one. I have also read real estate offers where bitcoin could be used as partial payment which means you don't need to have the entire funds.
"Lend Money into Existence
Because there is a fixed supply of bitcoins, it's impossible to simultaneously store a bitcoin in a blockchain address and lend it out, as banks do with deposits. However, firms could issue IOUs for bitcoins, which could then be used as a method of payment."
Is Creating money from nothing and lending it out at interest something we want? A better criticism would have been "you can't make loans in bitcoin because it is a deflationary currency and the borrower may inevitably default on their loan" .
Anyways to answer this question... you could create money with bitcoin. You can color a coin. You could take a single satoshi and color it and call it new money that is worth some large amount, then lend it. So the question is not if you can loan money into existence..... the question is actually why would the market accept that money?
"Avoid Infringement Claims
Many digital currencies have been built on top of the Bitcoin protocol, including the infamous Kanye West-themed Coinye. West sent a cease-and-desist letter to Coinye's developers, prompting Coinye to change its mascot to a "half-man-half-fish hybrid" that still bears a passing resemblance to the celebrity who inspired it. (Image: Bloomberg News)"
Patent troll companies are really the scum of the earth. Who knows what they will try to come up with in relation to bitcoin. On the plus side.... the bitcoin ecosystem is full of intelligent people who will ardently defend it. Also decentralization helps.

http://www.nofiatcoin.com/

The most basic freedom of all is the right to own ones own body. If you own your own body... then you can decide what you eat for dinner. Society can't suddenly come in and say... "hmmm we had a vote and we don't think you should eat that hamburger for dinner, here eat this carrot instead" . If we own our own body then society can't come in and say... "hmm you don't absolutely need that second kidney. We are going to come in and take it without your permission so that we can save the life of someone else"

. So how is it that society thinks it is constitutional for them to "vote" what we can do with our own bodies? For instance.....  prostitution.

less demand for the dollar. It says that as long as bitcoin is exchanged for fiat the dollar is fine but if bitcoin starts to get into  a more closed cycle where people are trading bitcoin for bitcoin then this would reduce the demand for dollars.

Doesn't this mean that dollars would simply get an increased inflation (or decrease in value) since the same amount of dollars are chasing less goods since those goods that would have been taken care of with dollars are then taken care of with bitcoin instead?

I have read that much of the QE that we have had has resulted in asset inflation instead of monetary inflation. Does this mean if asset prices crashed (such as stocks) that we would suddenly see a surplus of dollars and thus hyper inflation?

I sent 100 milibits to my kryptokit address to try out buying things. It is no longer found it seems

edit: Nevermind I stil have it. I was using the wrong laptop DOH

I read this somewhere but I forgot... is this enabled? Does this come in at the wallet level? In other words in order to send an 80 byte message would you just need a wallet capable of it? If that is the case do any wallet have future plans for this?

to being no more than the average workers salary in the area that they reside.

would this lower pay give us lower quality politicians?

just wondering

It seems all over the world there are news articles appearing in each country. The price went from 13-266 earlier in the year and after all that news coverage it spiked to our current levels later. Now I think the recent news of bitcoin has reached many more people.... orders of magnitude more than before. I wonder if that will impact the price.

In the year 2014 William shatner acquires a bitcoin and proceeds to make a delayed transaction that won't actually occur until 2200. In that year the receiving end of the transaction is some future descendant in his family.... and it just so happens to be a young male who wants to buy an outrageously expensive starship.... which is still less than 1 BTC.


hmm is 2200 too soon?

is there anything legally preventing credit card companies from saying to a bitcoin merchant "stop accepting bitcoin or we will raise your fees" ?

capital gains essentially makes it so that if the dollar loses value you still have to pay because if you are holding something that doesn't lose value (bitcoin) while the dollar does... then as soon as you try to 'use' bitcoin you are charged with the difference.

It seems to me the greatest problem bitcoin faces isn't governments..... it is banks. That is because in the scheme of things the power of banks are above governments (The major banks). That's why I don't think the chances of bitcoin surviving much longer are too great......

but it seems like others just think the banks are waiting for clearer regulation rules. So which do you fall under? Do you think banks are hostile towards bitcoin because of unclear regulation or because of their wanting to retain ultimate power?

I was wondering if anyone has already made a chart that shows the volatility by basically showing the difference in terms of % from the high and lows on a given day.

In other words..... the chart would show historically over time how much the value of bitcoin actually fluctuates in terms of percentage.