http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_TpbxORxmnY#t=483s

Brief mention of bitcoin on today's Keiser Report.
James Turk will be soon in the show, and seems like he'll be ask (again) his opinion on bitcoin 

Ready to bet that BFL will deliver ASICs before 2013 ? Interesting 

Please cypherdoc don't make this shortcut. Obviously we would all want the situation to be really solved, and that politicians stopped printing money to bail out loosers (in this case, banks).
But we shouldn't bet on what we want, we should bet on what is more likely to happen. And you're smart enough to understand that.

Nah, quite the contrary. I'm happy to have passionate discussion with you, even if we disagree (that makes discussions even more interesting).
What I wish is that you don't die before getting proven wrong (and after that, the later the better obviously)

Nice to see you're well, I was getting worried 

Wow, What the hell is happening. Someone is dumping PM, and cypherdoc didn't post here yet 
Hope everything is ok for you.

On a side note, I'm happy I didn't took your bet 
But If you are sad about that, we can double the previous one (1500$ vs 1900$)

IANAL, but these evidences, added to informations from your ISP, should hold up in court. Ask your lawyer.

How can it be possible to solve that ? There will always be people making fake coins/bars, like n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU showed it's not a new problem. History shows it didn't prevented gold/silver to impose itself as money in history.
It's an arms race between people making these bars and people testing them. And people testing are winning. If these bars were not detectable without melting it, that would be a real problem.

I also don't think it's a game changer, since there is already good solutions to solve it.
Even if cheap ultrasound testers are not good enough, then I guess at least the big dealers will be able to buy good ones. It will perhaps add costs, but won't be a game changer. And clearly bitcoin is a lot less expensive to test.

But for sure with the rise in price of PM, these companies will have a bright future  

The real crazy thing to me is that dealers don't have even a cheap ultrasound tester. Pretty sure cypherdoc's one is not needed to see the difference (ZH people were saying something 200$ worth is good enough). I guess now more will, and will agree to do testing in front of customers.

But the good news is that it's yet another argument for bitcoin.

Hi,

I have two questions :

 - It looks like there's a bug in the order book (same for all contracts, futures and exchange). I can only see the first bid, and no asks. I think it started yesterday.
 - I saw in the "my account" section that you were implementing google 2fa. I configured it, but I can still login without entering the code.

Disagree. The world is just starting to hear about bitcoin. It's usefulness is growing, and still have a LOT more room to grow.
Of course the value of USD is going down, but it's minuscule compared to the increase of value of bitcoin.
For BTC to reach 100$ only because of USD devaluation, USD value would have to go down around 85% "pretty soon". Won't happen.

Ah Ah, gamblers spotted. ~1% moves -> noise

Well if you see bitcoin as moving closer to lightspeed than us, then their time is dilated and they are travelling into the future

But no, the less flawed explanation is just that bitcoin is a comparatively smaller market, thus bigger volatility. It won't last

Thanks for that. Basically bitcoin would be just another digital commodity within the network, with better properties as money. Interesting thought

You mean that graph ? :



Still wondering how you can be bearish on gold looking at that  

Yep, seems to be a big problem in economics. More of a cult than a science, ignoring (or firing) contradition. Fortunately some are getting back to real science (I'm reading "Debunking economics" by Pr Steve Keen these days, this guy looks like a real scientist. Though apparently he doesn't like bitcoin because of deflation)

He's not yet convinced, but he's getting there. He just need time (hopefully for him not too much) to be able to trust Bitcoin.
And Félix is a good speaker, clear and good arguments. Kudos to him.

Tangibility (as in "I can touch it") is clearly not important. He's saying "I can exchange a tangible asset, a silver coin, for a tangible commodity". He can also exchange the silver coin for a non-tangible asset, for example a service. A service clearly has value even if it's not tangible. And fiat money also proved that tangibility is not an issue. Most of fiat is electronic, and that's not the problem.
Problem is the amount of energy needed to expand the supply. USD supply can be expanded with a few keystrokes (basically 0 energy), gold supply can be expended by mining it (non-zero, increasing energy, sometimes not linear wrt time), bitcoin supply is expended by mining too (energy increasing arguably even faster that gold, piecewise-linear wrt time, reaching infinity in around a century if things stays like that)

"Backing" is also a complex term. To me it just means it's something desirable, not something which have another utility. Basically, in the case of money, backing would be desirable property for an object to be used as money.
Clearly bitcoin has desirable property as money :
 - divisible, fungible, verifiable, cheap & fast to transfer, peer to peer (no third party). That would be the good properties for a medium of exchange.
 - limited & predictable supply, decentralized control, and a good medium of exchange. That would be properties for a store of value.

Clearly with regards to these properties (I might have forgot some), bitcoin is superior to every other form of money. All these properties are the "backing" of bitcoin, and make it desirable.
No need to use Mises regression theorem (to me bitcoin is a good proof that this theorem is limited/wrong).

Now that we're back at 1770, at least you can be sure that I'm not just refusing your bet because the action goes in your favor.
But I'm still not taking the bet. The train might stop, go back 1 or 2 stations before going to the next station.
Betting on a 1% variation up or down is just too high variance (too much luck, not enough skill) to me, I'm not that much of a gambler.

Again, a weak dollar is the goal.

"What ? Our debt is gigantic and foreigners are still accepting our paper like it's gold ? Better make more of it !"
Makes a lot more sense now does it ?