I see a lot of women involved in craft, jewelry, and antique fairs. That may be a good place to start. Get them to accept btc for tyairnwares online, or teach then to set it up on their phones, and they don't,t have to worry as much about change or credit cards. Maybe try to get Etsy to add it as an option (though that may cut into their profits). Maybe convince some moms to put aside some money into Bitcoin for their kid's college funds. Shouldn't be too hard if you show them returns over the last 3 years and only have them put in a little bit. They may get more interested as they see their small investment grow.
Basically, just talk to women you know, whether friends or relatives or whatever.

You know, instead of free entry for women, or attracting women with wealthy guys and sports cars, why don't we just spend the next few months (years?) focusing on getting more women actually interested in bitcoin? That would be quite a bit less sexist. Plus if you meet single bitcoiner women there, you'll already have something in common.

Why is there always something? If you create a thick lead sphere, and stick it into space behind some planet far in our solar system, so that the planet is blocking out the sun, the inside of the sphere is exposed to vaccum to get all the gas out, and the lead in the sphere blocks out all light and radiation, that sphere will have plenty of nothing in it.

Old people have been complaining about "things moving too fast" probably since the beginning of civilization. Yes, there will be fewer labor intensive jobs, just as there have been fewer and fewer labor intensive jobs throughout the progress of 1900's, but that just freed up people to do other much more productive jobs. And yes, employment terms will be shorter and shorter. Used to be you would find a life-long job, then a 25 year career, now people switch jobs every 5 years. When Bitcoin takes over and converts us to a deflationary economy, people will have to renegotiate work contracts probably every year. Eventually you would be able to pop onto an online job board, and do something for someone for a couple of hours from home. Average woorker used to till the soil, then pound on things in factories, then serve fries and clean hotels, and soon may be sitting at home, tagging photos with keywords or something. Although change is scary and uncomfortable, I don't think this will necessarily be a bad thing.

Also, even if it is a scary future we are moving towards, there's really nothing that anyone can do to stop it. The days of wealth control through issuing government money, and "equalizing" things through confiscation-and-redistribution are coming to an end.

Still "Ludite falacy." The author starts to fail right at this sentence

His idea seems to be that as long as we have more labor intensive jobs available, we will continue to have employment, but as labor intensive jobs get replaced by automation, unemployment will decrease. What he is missing is that we will have new types of jobs, ones that may not even be labor intensive, and that automating labor just frees up people to do something more productive.

Yes, if we resort to central planning, or remove work inventive by giving unconditional income, and through those method effectively freeze our economic and technological progress where it is now, then old jobs will get replaced by automation, and new jobs will not be allowed to be created, so we will end up with an unemployment problem. But if we allow creative types to come up with whatever new inventions, businesses, or automation they want, and allow workers to work for any amount of money and any amount of time, then the people at the top will always come up with new ideas to explore and implement, and laborers who get replaced by automation will always get freed up to help explore the new ideas.
At the very least, we will always need people to help maintain those robots. At most, we will always need people to be creative and visionary, and to pick directions and steer ideas and businesses forward. Down the middle, we will always at least need people to put together the new methods of innovation. Those robots, factories, and businesses aren't going to build themselves.

Yeah, not the same thing. An MBA typically involves a concentration in something. I have an MBA with concentration in global business and finance. Others in my group went into MBA's with focus in securities and investments, marketing, economics, supply chain management, global sourcing, human resources, etc. You know, all those things that help an idea or a personal piece of programming code turn into an actual business. Unless you're arguing that business never produced anything for society, and that we should all go back to each person only producing one thing, like farmer, blacksmith, barber, etc.

No, you just can't transfer them to anyone else until a patch is released.

Minimum number of all users, or minimum number of users in the top brackets? Because we know we've had over 100,000 bitcoin users since Summer of 2011.

Can we have an international "I finally got BTC1,000 party?" Maybe I'll get to go to it sometime 

Governments don't actually pay down their debt. If a government starts to take in more in taxes than it spends, instead of using that money to reduce debt, they go, "It's the people's money, we should cut taxes." Or they figure out what else they can spend it on (usually more social programs). And thus, government debt pretty much always increases, until either the government defaults, or collapses. For it to happen otherwise, you would have to believe that the citizens of one country actually cared about the debt that they owe to the citizens of another country, and more specifically cared about the debt that was taken out in their name, without their consent, by their politicians.

Seconded. When we do financial projections, we typically include best-guess scenario, and also include best-case and worst-case. Can you provide something like this with a list of parameters that would change? Also, did my explanation of my own situation help with the BTC1,000+ calculations any?

Well, the nice thing is, all those top holders have an extreme interest in making sure bitcoin succeeds, and are pumping that money into bitcoin businesses and projects, AND they want someplace to actually spend those coins. And at the same time, all us poor plebes want to be able to get our hands on those coins, and have quite a few wealthy bitcoiners willing to give up their coins for our jobs and products, even if they are of questionable quality  

It was actually quite a bit simpler and more sinister than that. And also the way Sovier Union came into power. Basically, you convince only enough people that there is some absolute truth (God is real and says so-and-so, or State and Motherland are so-and-so), and convince them that those who disagree with or question these absolutes (which are designed to be unquestionable, like god is) are enemies of the state/religion, who will try to convert, subvert, and destroy you. You don't even need to convince everyone of this. Just enough so that if someone does start to question, everyone else, whether they actually believe your BS or not, will report on them, kill them, or burn them at the stake, just out of fear of being found out to be such outsider themselves. Eventually, you can even end up with no one really believing any of that BS, but still towing the line, and even being overzealous about it, just so they don't get caught.
And this is why internet, global unrestricted communication, and anonymity are so important, and have contributed so much to the fall of dictatorships and theocracies.

That's not an opinion. Especially with respect to Christianity. We actually have historical records to support this.

Interesting deductions. I'll add more info, in case it helps you with the rest of your guesswork:


There are quite a few people with accounts that old who were big fans of bitcoin from a political/sociological standpoint, but who didn't actually have the money to buy any coins or mining equipment (the prodigal teenage bitcoiner basement dwellers). Personally, my mining operation consisted of two 300MHash/s GPUs, which I bought soon after joining the forum. Throughout their entire life (I stopped mining when reward halved to 25BTC), I think they mined me something like 100BTC. Probably less, since they weren't always working. Other than that, I have admitted to using Bitcoin as a long-term savings account for things I don't need to pay for right away, but have used those coins to pay for a few trips and vacations (including to Europe), and a few phones and tablets. I didn't actually have all that much cash to invest into bitcoin to begin with, either ($100 at $10/BTC exchange rate only nets you BTC10, and I couldn't put in more than a few hundred every month)


That entire amount actually came from a large purchase at about $10-$13 that was done using a large loan just a few month prior to the sale (borrowed over time during September and October, sold in January). So it wasn't from long-term holding at all. Actually, the story is that I wanted to buy a BFL ASIC rig, and needed $30,000 for it. I had a bit of my own money, but needed to borrow a significant amount to be able to afford that thing. However, due to $5,000 Dwolla balance limitations and 3 to 7 day bank transfer times, I was limited to converting USD to BTC at $5,000 a week, meaning it took me from late August to late October just to transfer enough money into BTC. By the time I had enough in BTC to afford to purchase that rig, BFL claimed that they will start shipping in 2 weeks or so. So I decided to hold off on preordering, and buy a rig when they are sold outright (this was around the end of October). Once January came around, and the price started to go way up (and BFL still wasn't shipping), I decided to sell off the borrowed bitcoin at $22, pay off the loan, and use the remaining profits to buy a new car instead (the Prius with the BITCOIN license place, to replace my old '99 civic had 250,000+ miles on it). Actually, I even had to go a bit out of pocket, since the profit didn't cover the entire cost of the car.
As for the director position, I'm the director of the Bitcoin100 charity fundraiser. All that means, really, is that I'm entrusted with the money, and am volunteering my time to doing accounting, somewhat-directing what charities we try to give that money to, and send the money. The actual Bitcoin100 account only has BTC149 in it, none of which are actually mine.


I'd like to think I have played wisely, since I didn't do any bitcoin loans, ponzies, gambling, or stocks (which ultimately couldn't get a bigger return than bitcoin itself). But I was forced to sell a lot at times, just because that's the only money I had to use to pay for travel and other large expenses. I *WISH* I had $3,000  


Obviously we all buy back, but I only buy back with the money I have. If I have spent it, I no longer have it, and am right back to only buying with what I have earned while working at my job. Consider that some of us are only able to put, say, $200 into BTC every month, and have one or twice a year expenses of $500 to $1,500. I just ran this hypothetical using MtGox prices, and even if the person buys $200 a month worth since June 2011, and never spent any of those coins, they would only have about BTC650BTC at this point. If they had to spend, say, $1,000 twice a year, once in Spring and one in Autumn, they would only have at most about BTC200BTC. That's nowhere near BTC1,000, and definitely not BTC10,000. I think you need to really reduce your estimations for old members, since many of us aren't wealthy enough to dump thousands into bitcoin.


I won't dispute, or confirm that (other than the Countess part   ) but hopefully my example shows that this isn't such a cut-and-dry conclusion.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that happens is shit. There may be other life that feeds on your shit, but otherwise you just make shit. Butt-babies are a myth.

I am pretty sure you got that backwards. It's: Your world can be full of meaning, limiteless, and with god, but it doesn't make it apply to any reality other than yourself. The rest of us have out own realities, meanings, and gods.

As was mentioned, the question isn't whether the universe is meaningless, but to whom is it meaningless. It has a lot of meaning to those people with the pleasure and pain centers who are following the actions they were wired for, but it's pretty much meaningless to the rest of it's planets, stars, and existence in general.



I guess in this case it depends on your definition of meaningful. Plus, fluke implies that it could/should have happened one way, but turned out to happen another way. With the universe, it just happened. If there are other universes, things likely happened differently there. So, it's not so much a fluke as just inevitability. I'm not sure that mathematical laws are meaningful, either. Again, to whom? We think they are meaningful, because they help us understand the universe and create awesome tech gadgets. The universe doesn't really care. And if the laws were diffferent, some other inteligent creatures would have likely found them meaningful in some other way, while the rest of the universe would just continue to exist.
So, maybe you're ascribint some definition of meaningful to mean "it isn't just random, it's specific, has meaning, can be used to exchange information," and I'm not sure what the goal of that is (for a creationist, that would be proof of inteligent design), but I don't think they are meaningful, or even significant, beyond our own personal interests.

In the case of Columbus, the whole world said that they are, because the whole world believed as he did. As you saying that even if everyone thought they were Christian at some point in the past, they could still be wrong in regards to what it constitutes to be a Christian and to follow god''s teaching? If yes, why do you think the sheppards that wrote the bible scripts were not just as wrong as Columbus and all his christians of that time?


So your answer is B, "you didn't believe, or were sincere enough"

But that's ridiculously expensive!