That would be due to bitcoin traders using credit default swaps, naked short sells, derivatives, and currency manipulation.

I 50% agree with the OP. I think MtGox and other exchanges are fooling themselves to think that a few kids with PCs can compete with the big boys. There should be no day trading except through licensed brokers. In fact, the Bitcoin prices should only be reported by the brokers as well. Let them deal with the brunt of the public interface. Having a website that is open to the public is just a painted target for DDOS attackers. It would be better to have many brokers open to the public and a few exchanges only open to brokers.

This could also ensure no DDOS attacks or server outages would occur (there are no servers).

This thread clearly shows how bored people are these days, trying to generate value by talking 

The problem with bitcoin is that wealth isn't distributed between a wide enogh amount of people...MtGox displayed that one major power can really make an impact on Bitcoin via the limited supply & small minority of shared wealth.

This is the distribution phase.

Crypto may go mainstream one day. BTC? Less likely so.

It's a bit ironic that although TZM rejects the monetary system and the market economy entirely, almost none of its followers do.




Actually no, the ruble was not a money, per se. Money is basically like any other commodity, traded on the exchange, and having its value established by the same supply vs demand aspects like everything else. Cost of labor (wages) and price of goods all change constantly in relation to money, and depend of the supply of each compared to the demand of each (how much money is in circulation vs how much that money is sought by others, compared to how many apples are in season right now vs how many people want apples, determines how much money will be exchanged for apples, aka their price).

In contrast, rubles were essentially coupons or points that could be exchanged for other things based on a fixed exchange rate. Job wages were not earned based on demand, as they would be with money, but rewarded in ruble "points" based on their perceived importance, and the number of ruble "points" spent on an apple would be set (be central planners) based on their need for subsistence, and somewhat on the complexity of its production. In essense, a ruble was no different than a card you could get for 8 free coffees, where each time you visit, one of the 8 coffee squares gets punched out with a hole punch.

So, yeah, RBE is like communism, where all resources are planned out, and allocated using the point system.

True, but still looks pretty centralized to me. https://blockchain.info/pools. If a merchant connects to the top 5 pools, he has access to more than 51% of the total hashrate. I'm not criticizing the network, it's working as intended. I'm saying that it wouldn't take much for a merchant to accept 0-confirmation transactions while getting reasonable security.

I was talking about the main mining pool. I meant centralized - not mature. You are free to disagree though.

My understanding was that maidsafe was not just storage but more of a general purpose network services platform. If I'm incorrect about that, an I may be, then I would put it more in the category of storj.

You're missing the point. The point is the blogger (who is lythos btw) is twisting words and using an hour long video that nobody gives a shit about (including you, which is what clickbait like that relies on, btw, collective you not questioning how shitty the journalism is because you agree with/benefit from what is being stated) to make a bold "India is pro-bitcoin" statement. Which is an incredible stretch of the imagination in context, but does serve quite well, again, as clickbait.

Getting assholes like me to click on it to pick it apart is probably just gravy for the viewcount.

I'll concede the ad-hominem, allow me to rectify it:

Stolfi is trollin', for sure, but he is making a very obvious point while doing so, and instead of responding to that point, he just rides the "omfg troll" horse (mainly because Stolfi gave him the opportunity, because you can kind of tell Stolfi just doesn't give a fuck anymore) and gets an immediate pass from people who support his opinion (for example, you).

The obvious point Stolfi is making is that he's taking a quote that, to paraphrase, essentially says "I think we might go cashless someday, and virtual currencies will improve and become safer, and might just become the norm" and making it "pro-bitcoin." It's actually quite a big leap if you stop and think about it. Does he mean bitcoin, or does "improve" mean he thinks something will replace bitcoin? Does he couple the term "safer" with "improve" to imply that bitcoin is not safe? It's hard to tell, so to just blindly call it a "pro-bitcoin stance" is biased, don't you agree?

And keep in mind these are just questions raised from what he quoted. That's an hour-long video there, nobody visits a blog to watch an hour-long video.