Sure thing - if you're so inclined:

1JzkiUgVtXqXMgiYYiKhtSASfj6vPkG5YV

Appreciate it.

Video runs for 2:39 min:sec

It starts with a summary about Bitcoin, with a high-level view of some of its attributes. There's a bit of anti-spin on it though, as they used the phrase "sophisticated, and seemingly secure" in this part.

They sit down briefly with Jered Kenna (Tradehill) and learn how to buy bitcoin.

After this part, they make the obligatory media reference to criminal activities, such as buying guns and drugs, then they swiftly cut over to the more usual uses - like buying baked goods at a San Francisco shop. Jered demonstrates a basic transaction here using mobile technology.

Then Dan Kaminsky explains he can't "crack" the software, calling it "alien" and made with a "high standard of quality".

Finally, they take a brief look at mining with Terry Floyd showing his rig and some closeups of his terminal window as it processes hashes. It is explained that he gets a reward for doing system processing tasks, which is nice, usually they don't try to explain.

Final closing bit is a comment on Bitcoin volatility, how most people trust "regular" currencies, but they note that bitcoin already has big investors interested in it.

So, they tread on the darker aspects but also provide the better ones - I suppose it was slightly slanted towards the bad stuff, but they managed to not make it a "hit" piece.

I'd be even more impressed if they built a chinese-only exchange to rival the japanese-located Mt. Gox.

I wonder if that would even be possible...

Haha, less than a 50/50 chance eh? I knew economists just flipped a coin for everything they do - those freaking muppets. I'd use this as a contrarian indicator actually.

Yes, this bothers me as well. Perhaps create an actual crowd-sourced list outside of the auspices of the foundation? Popular vote? Everyone put up a satoshi or something for each category?

Actually its payment verification while performing entropy-reduction. But most people's eyes would cross.

Litecoin won't scale with their rapid-confirm tweak. Different parts of the network will be in different states - causing continuous re-orgs and merges of the blockchain.

They also don't have the collective hashpower to make any kind of 'secure' claim. We're at what -- 70 - 80 Thash/sec?
From the litecoinpool.org I see a collective hashing rate of 1,624,292 Khash/sec - a considerable difference.

Trendlines or regression-fit lines don't predict, they indicate in a simplified way what the current price progression is. If people are using them to predict - that is flawed. Trendlines are useful for staying in a trend when you have a position on, using it as a ruler to see where you're at.

As for chart patterns, some can be useful - especially realizing when you're in an exponential/parabolic move that can break down suddenly after a rise - but others are just hugely subjective and don't produce any actionable trading decisions.

To condemn it all is a mistake. Even statistical evidence suggests the distribution of price data isn't a random walk - it doesn't fit the normal gaussian distribution (bell curve) very well. The mean is usually higher and there are more excursions to the 'tails' that can't be explained. (Leptokurtotic versus the standard "bell" curve.)

If you're familiar with the Hurst exponent, a measure of past changes influencing future changes, you'd know that price series display a persistent reading above 0.5 (randomness), usually in the range of 0.7 to 0.8 - what this all means is that price does have an effect on what prices will be tomorrow. This is why certain techniques can work, and do so reliably.

Of course, of the ones that truly work - you won't see them sold as trading systems are hawked online, because their authors are using them to make money, not to swindle newbie traders.

This is how bitcoin wins, by small increments - someone incorporating a calculator is a discovery waiting to happen for a novice trader. A website saying "We Take Bitcoins" prompts a curious shopper to investigate. It is the real use cases that excite me beyond the pure speculative appeal.

Take the whole foodler thing - ordering food with bitcoins in any urban area. Someone goes to that site and wonders "Oh, bitcoins.. what is that?" and while they place what might be their last order with dollars, they're reading about bitcoin and munching on their delivered food.

Truly exciting times.

The main problem with anyone relying on Mises Regression Theory is they ignore the virtual. By their very nature, bits and bytes have intrinsic value. They allow us to do computations, they carry information across the internet, they enable the entirety of global commerce.

But because you can't scoop up a bunch of stored charges on a whirling platter or tumble them out of your ethernet cable and hold them in your hand -- bits are given short shrift in economists eyes. Sorry, but the regression theory has been proven, they're just too blind to see it.

Bitcoin has taken raw bits and an initial state of high entropy and have forged order and non-entropic states to convey value. The technical people get it first, because they never had a problem with dealing virtually in the first place. Its all the other fossils that can't get their thick meat-brains around the idea.

Yeah, like saying Gold is "supposedly controlled by the laws of Physics".

Pozen wishes Bitcoin would go away, is more like it. This is sounding more and more like when Napster started, and the RIAA/MPAA did a complete freak-out.

The really risky thing is a tech magazine still trying to be relevant.

Hang it up, Wired, you're trying too hard to become HuffingtonPost 2.0

If it were part of the Governments operational plans, you wouldn't have public officials condemning it in public. They'd go after the drugs and money laundering - or at least seem to - without pointing the finger at bitcoin being the "threat".

I also subscribe to the simplest explanation being the most likely. It was a piece of disruptive tech cobbled together by a small team, or one person with a bunch of consulting contacts.

This is absurd as saying the web-browser was created by the government so they can back-door all of your activity. They don't need to go that far, just sniff on the major backbone routers (which was exposed via AT&T leaks on Echelon).

Elaborate theories just don't make sense, given the amount of secrecy needed.

Got a chance to use the service - it performed as advertised, you get the opportunity to leave a tip for the driver in their order form, so no need to have spare < sovereign currency > lying around - which is excellent.

This is going to change the variety of my meals, for sure - and allows a chance to try different things out just using bitcoin.

Bubbles don't "pop and pop". They pop once, and its over -- for good. This author is a complete idiot.

Might as well write "Horse and Buggy Gazette - Horseless Carriages Hopeless Fad, Expensive" for how out-of-touch they are.

That's odd - I just checked and they don't have anything like that on their page. Where did you see that?

I searched based on the number displayed -- that isn't foodler, its this site:

https://www.eatgrubgo.com/bitcoin.htm

Just so people know - you made a mistake man, wrong site.

They wrote back saying they had some issues - probably with the exchange API they rely on to keep the price updated. The bitcoin button now works and I'm waiting on the confirms to fund my account.

Great customer service, they got back to me in less than a business day about it.

The journalist was the one that launched right into the "you can use it for shady things like drugs" part - and it wasn't possible to recover from there.

Colbert on the other hand, compared bitcoin to Joe Camel Bucks (cigarettes) and the Euro - which made me laugh a bit. He could've been so much worse toward it. I got the distinct impression that Colbert wasn't trying to lampoon it, but the speaker did it all for him.

Anyway, a few million people saw that - not including the re-plays when people check out their archived episodes... so... a mixed bag of win?

Okay, I'm using Firefox 20.0.1 (also tried it in Chrome) and it didn't work. Hmm.... maybe I was logged into a server that handles a specific region and it was wonky? Don't know...

Glad it worked for you though.