Nope... wanted to gauge interest. I'd show creatives for approval before requesting the payments to be sent.

I'm feeling a little philanthropic today and I'd like to put some btc to good use. I'm willing to throw a couple coins into purchasing a banner ad at DailyPaul.com. If there is enough interest to pool at least 40-50 bitcoins for this purpose, I'll orchestrate it and make it happen. I'll do the design and admin work, so all donations will go toward the actually banner placement. 40-50 btc could get us a skyscraper for two weeks.

I don't really have interest in advertising bitcoin to the general public for many reasons, but targeted ads to niche groups who understand money might be a reasonable community investment.

Here is the demographic and pricing info: https://www.buyads.com/website/daily-paul

So please post here, and let me know how much you're willing to donate if we can reach 40-50 btc total (I'm hoping maybe 20 people at 2 btc each).

Anyone want to join me?

I'll be buying it at whatever the market price is over the next year. It's worth zero or it's worth thousands, but it is not worth $12 =)  To be able to be involved with something so revolutionary for markets and freedom is deeply satisfying. I care little for the interim daily prices.

^ This    Happened for me in early May. Would that it were a couple months prior, but how fortunate that it was not a couple months later!

This boggles my mind. How screwy is a world in which one's creditworthiness is maintained to the extent that one continues accumulating debt!!! The US must assume further debt to be considered more creditworthy? WTF?

Yes, the mainstream economists misuse the term. Given that they were unable to predict the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, I tend not to lend credence to their opinions and misguided definitions. Not to mention the manipulation of this terminology is insidious, it has confused the entire world as to the reasons for the increasing price of milk. It has gotten to a point where people believe "inflation" is just a natural phenomenon in a market economy, instead of an intentional and deliberate policy by the central bank.

The discrepancy in definitions is not an innocent evolution of language, it is an intentional perversion of meaning which obscures an extremely important phenomenon. I refuse to mislead other people and follow suit by adopting and perpetuating molested vernacular.

Bitcoin has never deflated - it is always inflating at a diminishing rate. Its price has fallen. Price changes =/= inflation or deflation.  Don't confuse a symptom of inflation (rising prices) with inflation itself (increase in the money supply).

Bernanke does this all the time and it drives me crazy. He says, "the rising costs of food and energy are driving inflation higher." Nonsense. HE is driving inflation higher, and as a result food and energy costs are rising. It's like 1984 word-isms. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Debt is stimulus

Thanks for the discussion. No I am certainly not saying there is an end of history... quite the opposite. But the manner in which humans interact with each other - the incentives and typical outcomes as they relate to private property - were as true 10,000 years ago as they are today. We've just gotten better (or in some cases worse) at defining them.

Ownership of one's self and one's labor is not subject to "phases" of history. It's a constant, or at least it ought to be. Certainly some peripheral rules about how we determine property ownership can change, but the fundamental principle that one can and ought to own property which he creates or voluntarily trades for... I don't see that changing until human nature fundamentally changes.

To be honest, I think those who have a problem with private property are more accurately described as having a problem with "inequality" itself. Seeing two people with different abilities, talents, possessions, opportunities, and lifestyles fundamentally bothers many people. Perhaps it bothers you? Yet while humans should be treated equally under a legal system, they are inherently unequal from birth. Some are smarter, some are skilled in a certain area, some are strong and play football well, some make better decisions, some happen upon fortunate circumstances and some make fortune upon their own strength of will. Instead of despising these inequalities, I find them very valuable as they permit a vast division of labor and immense opportunity to cooperate.

We are not ants in a hive... equal in our ambitions, character, and build. Humans are individuals, inherently unequal. As such, I am highly skeptical of any system which attempts to "communalize" humans. Humans will always co-operate when it is in their selfish interest to do so (even donating to charity falls into this category typically). But trying to encourage humans to co-operate without strong regard to their own selfishness is a fool's errand, and indeed wholly unnecessary. As Adam Smith said, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker, or the brewer that we get our dinner." This has been true since the dawn of man, has it not?

That's why none of us buy computer equipment. We all know we'll get twice the power at half the price in 6 months. I'm still on an Apple II and one of those old Nokia cell phones from 1998. Clearly, deflation ruins economic progress.

PS- Bitcoin is not deflationary, regardless. It's asymptotically inflationary. It's only deflationary if people lose/misplace wallet files faster than the new currency is minted. In fact, BTC is much more inflationary that USD right now.

The shortsightedness of some of these comments amazes me. Bitcoin is either worth pennies as a silly tech-geek collectors item, or worth thousands of dollars a piece as the new currency of the internet and international trade. There is not much middle ground, and the true value will be realized over the next 6-24 months.

Trying to ponder whether to sell at $12.85, or $11, or $13.46... so silly! 

1) A few billion people wouldn't agree with you suggestion that "we've escaped the starvation." They might not want the boat to be abandoned just yet.

2) Wealth is generated on a gradient, in perpetuity. It's not a "we have it" or "we don't have it" phenomenon. Thus the analogy to "crossing a river" is not appropriate. There is no finish line.

I read somewhere on these forums (or an article) that Bitcoins could even be sent via smoke signal. All they are is a code, so in theory one could transfer that code in a million creative ways =)

I think you did. We were having an interesting discussion.

To how much of other peoples' money do you think you're entitled?

The same could be said about a company logo... meaningless, right? All that matters is what the company sells and its service?

Marketing and design - including a domain name - represent signals to potential customers. Often these signals are somewhat subconscious, and I promise that you do indeed care about the domain name though you may not realize it. Just as you would subconsciously judge a person who was "unkempt", so too do you judge a company that looks unprofessional. It's a signal, and these signals are important in a competitive marketplace.

With due respect, I think you're impression of what the world was like before modern conveniences is grossly misguided. You call the world a "playground"?

You realize that you're still perfectly able to return to that state of living. Give away all your "useless material possessions" and go live in a national park or up in the vast open territory in Canada. You can live just like they did thousands of years ago. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this.

The "playground" you speak of was anything but. Nine out of ten of us chatting about this would already be dead, and the other would be perpetually hungry and terrified of the impending winter.

There is a reason men have labored continuously over thousands of years to escape this "playground." Yet, you complain because the idea that some people own property bothers you? You'd rather just have everyone destitute, afraid, and starving... so long as everyone was equal in this misery?

Nobody need investigate if there is no complaining party. Live and let live. If the young girl later changes her mind and decides she's been manipulated or harmed in some way, then perhaps the law should get involved. Until that point, it's really no business of anyone's.

And it's fine if you don't wish to live in "Libertarian Land," no libertarian would force you to. You're welcome to surrender 50% of your earnings and let others impose absurd restrictions on you if that makes you happy. The problem is that the non-libertarians don't afford the same courtesy, and force the libertarians to surrender to their tyranny by "voting" for such.

Two points:

1) There will always be crazy anecdotal cases like that. I don't think society should base its laws on the most outrageous common denominator. A man has the right to own a firearm even if another man acts foolish with his own.

2) If both the mother and the daughter decided to do this, and there's no evidence of fraud or deceit, then I really don't understand what the big deal is. Weird? Yes. Troublesome? Perhaps. But immoral? I don't see how it's immoral if there is no victim.

Just because something is "wierd" or bothers you personally, doesn't mean you have the right to prohibit it via legislation. If there is no victim, then the the law ought not interfere. You can claim the young girl is the victim, maybe, but if she disagrees with you then whom exactly are you helping by making her decision illegal and throwing her or her mother or the craigslist buyer in prison?

Nice OP I see you went with the "get four GPU's and score four copies of Shogun" trick. I did that also but sold them on eBay. Should've sold the games for btc like you, brilliant! =)

You do realize that none of that matters, right? =)  .Coms are used because they are better for branding than .net in most cases. Usage has little if anything to do with whether a company is a "company" or a "network."

The perception remains that if you have a .net you look less professional than if you have a .com.