I still don't get the "democratize Bitcoin" sentiment.  What do you imagine people would vote on?

As for the currency unit (thanks Jamie_Boulder for helping to clarify), don't worry.  A single bitcoin is very valuable but can be broken into very small pieces.  If these smaller pieces are thought to be sufficiently useful then they'll earn names naturally with time.  Personally, I like to think and deal in terms of mBTC (which I call "mills") because bitcoins are too large for most things.

Also, notice that normal people deal with even larger jumps in currency units all the time.  Consider South Koreans whose currency unit, the Korean won, is worth about 1000 times less than the euro, yet ordinary Korean people are capable of visiting Europe and using the currency without any kind of special training.

I don't really follow this.  Are you suggesting that the value of a single bitcoin is too high or that the total value of all bitcoins (the "market cap") is too high.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the "democratic" notion from.  Bitcoin is really very much unlike anything I would describe as democratic.  Care to elaborate?


I believe that the currency with the most potential to capture the spirit of crypto-currencies (the freedom, the decentralisation, Bitcoin's "aura") while keeping any issues regarding value and stability of the units to a minimum is Bitcoin itself.

Energy being spent on altcoins is indicative of the health you reference.  The population of altcoins roughly following a Pareto distribution (in their "market caps")  is validation that this movement is rooted in liberty and therefore a proper opponent of the fiat money system.  Unity is good but too much unity suggests poor health.

As far as I'm aware, Bitcoin has had an open development model since satoshi released v0.1-alpha at the beginning of 2009.  Check out the stickied threads in the development subforum.  Indeed, it's some of the altcoins which are developed in private (Nxt comes to mind).

Missing option: Ignore them.

I don't just mean put up with the spam but develop (or support the development of) wallet functionality which ignores dust by default.

So, a master can punish a slave by setting them free.  The free person will then want to find any new master that will have them.

Not sure the "slave" analogy is the right one to be honest.

We might even complete the square with "E-gold".  This centralised, US-based, alternative currency was killed in 2009 with a "market cap" of the equivalent of about 20 million USD.

Hmm...  What happens if a "wageslave" is fired?  Are they then free?

A slave is a person which is simultaneously property.  To all those that believe having a "shitty job" is slavery, may I ask you to identify the corresponding master/owner?

Yes.  Here.

If in 10 years time bitcoins are not considered "actual money" then you'll have lost your entire investment.

Indeed.  I wonder why this is such a common error though.  Do you suppose that the "war stimulates the economy" crowd are typically assuming that "all work is equally productive"?

Might it be that this axiom also leads to puzzlement when a person creates a great deal of wealth with relatively little work?  If I subconsciously held that "all work is equally productive" then, when presented with the seeming paradox of the very rich, I'd deduce that there must be some unfairness/theft/exploitation occuring at some level.

Building useful infrastructure can have economic merit.
Destroying and rebuilding such infrastructure cannot.

Creating productive jobs can be economically valid.
Creating unproductive, or worse, destructive jobs cannot.

Bombing one's own country to destroy infrastructure and create jobs will not improve the average quality of life.
Employing millions of people to dig holes and millions more to fill those holes in again will not make us wealthier.

He sure did.  You can still see his Bitcoin v0.1 Alpha release notes on Sourceforge.

I don't really distinguish between the wallet (Bitcoin Core) and the protocol regarding the status "beta" simply because Bitcoin Core is currently viewed as the reference implementation of the protocol.

I'm sure we'll see Bitcoin Core 0.10, 0.11, and 0.12 first if this remark by Gavin from 2012 is anything to go by:

But, from nearly a year earlier...

The Bitcoin community continues to monitor the Bank of England and the risk it poses to our mission.  If a subset of people transacted exclusively in bitcoin, then the Bank's ability to manipulate demand for this group will hopefully be impaired.

God damned Loch Ness Monster!  I already told you I don't have 3 Finney!

I don't follow you (@ OP).  You explain that miners might like the ability to sell their bitcoins immediately at a price set and agreed upon in advance.  This seems natural enough to me as otherwise their income would be much more volatile than their costs.

If a wealthy trader is able to offer such a service and make a profit then that's a win-win, classic division of labour.  If a wealthy investor is able to buy more coins more cheaply this way than by buying on the exchanges then this is good for everyone.

I disagree.  The bulk of the screams for manipulation are built on poor reasoning, a weak understanding of volatility and probability, and a cognative bias which attributes anything interesting as having come from some thinking agent (see the intellegent design argument).  This is not new to the community and indeed was more pernicious in the past with the whole "the manipulator" meme.

I'd say nothing needs to be done about this but if the screams are worrying, I'd recommend addressing the actual problem: the demons in peoples' minds.  At the very least, let us spend our energy advertising Bitcoin to professional day-traders, highlighting how some actors are pushing the price around in predictable ways.  Such "manipulators" are easy prey for a seasoned trader and these traders will help to reduce volatility and bring about swift price discovery.  They may even help to drive the amateur speculators and gamblers out of the market (good riddance) leading to even lower volatility.

Regulations will only make things worse as they will certainly raise the barrier to entry for new traders and/or trading platforms and may even make truly decentralised trading systems effectively illegal.  Less choice will only foster abuse and lead to a less level playing field.  The greater costs which must come with regulation would also be most unwelcome.