Since I have tried both a bank payment app on an NFC-enabled phone and a QRcode-enabled bitcoin wallet, I would go with bitcoin + QR code on smart phones. The user experience is so much better.

The whole point of NFC is to use the phone, battery off, (when QR code cannot offer the same functionnality):  for public transportation applications or for small payments when the app does not require a personal code. The cost/benefit analysis for handset manufacturers is not in favor of NFC because simple QR code (or other optical codes) is sufficient in most cases.
I fail to see whats so great for bitcoin with NFC ?

Are you suggesting that A and B must borrow again to pay interests ? If THEY are not borrowing, then interests cannot be repaid without money coming from elsewhere.
In other words, if the bank does not organize a shortage of money, then all of a sudden we can think about another way of making decisions for our future..

BTW, on this topic, its worth visiting this site: metacurrency.org

They can go on printing euros (actually letting banks create money out of thin air) until the end of times for all I care as long as they let the productive economy use another currency (like bitcoin).

The thing is since the euro and the dollar are in a simultaneous free fall, everybody can pretend nothing is happening: its only showing in the cost of living, affecting the poor much harder than the rich who has disposable income.

Your overview is a useful exercise albeit perilous in avoiding the comparison between apple and oranges. Lietaer failed in connecting the dots between local currencies and complementary currencies.

It seems that bitcoin fits in the "think global" of the now famous "think global, act local" motto.
Local currencies are an expression of local initiatives but they lacked a resilient technology implementation before the inception of bitcoin.

You may want to check what Bernard Lietaer has to say about monetary diversity (Poptech video in English): http://www.e-ducat.fr/?p=195.
In essence, we are stuck today with an outdated monopolistic monetary system (dating from the 17e century) when in fact monetary diversity is waht s needed in a digital age. Technology allows us to run different systems in parallel when the 1% want us to keep using the system they are controlling (USD or EURO or whatever).

Patrick Villeret, a French economist, also advocated complementary currencies as early as 2006 when he set up the SOL in used today in several cities of France (the SOL is pegged to the Euro).
In Switzerland, the WIR has been in use since the thirties.
Its important to realize that in current estimates 97% of the transactions in Euros or USD (in volume) are performed by the financial community and only 3 % by the rest of the economy (ie the productive sectors).

Another quote from this blog: "There will never be enough Bitcoin to finance all possible trade and it will suffer from high exchange rates."
WTF ?? Is that a NOTABLE source ?

J'ai découvert grâce à un bitcoiner qu'il y a une traduction en cours du client bitcoin en français sur le site de crowd translation open source transifex.net
Je vous invite à la relire pour améliorer encore cette traduction (je crois qu'il y a une bonne base).

I would suggest running the "weusecoins.com" video which has yet to be surpassed. Make sure to play it in slow motion though, if its a bitcoin primer for your audience.

For an investement club, I would throw in some relevant figures:
1/ Combined market cap of Visa and Mastercard: around 100 Billion USD
2/ Profits of Western Union in 2011: 1 Billion USD (over 70 Billion USD transferred, market cap around 10 billion USD)
3/ Current valuation of the bitcoin network: around 0.05 Billion USD

No problem with deflation (subject of a popular thread of this forum): thanks to infinite divisiblity, even if there is only one bitcoin left for transaction processing and all other 21 million bitcoins are hoarded, we can still process transactions normally.

+1
I felt the same while listening to this speech in Prague and I like your argument against the silly idea of "free-software-destroys-paying-jobs".

I will not be judgemental, not even conditionnally.
Lawful enforcement of a democratically adopted law (like social security and health care for everyone) is the norm in a democracy. And yes, regarding health care for instance, economic competition is a sure recipe for a social disaster that yields much worse results in the long run than simple compassion.
The dogma of the perfect markets with their invisible hand (competition) applied well for a long time (going back to Adam Smith and Ricardo) to an economy dominated by the production of physical goods.
It does not apply so well in an economy with a balanced mix of goods and services. And believe or not, I am a liberal (at this point you were probably going to call me a communist).
If compassion is too strong a word for a libertarian, he/she may try cooperation first..

Thanks Grondilu this is awesome!

Anyone can open an account at www.bitcoin-central.net, deposit their bitcoins for safe storage and withdraw to pay their online purchases.

Now to store a large amount of bitcoins, it makes sense to use a paper wallet.

Although Lady Gaga and Bill Cosby are unquestionably more qualified, Pierre de Fermat is my suggestion (if dead guys are allowed on the list) for his famous Last Theorem. He was amongst the first after Diophantus to study elliptic equations (sometimes referred to as elliptic "curves", used in bitcoin cryptography) with significant contributions.

On a side note, this does not seem to run on Win XP.

I tend to agree with you and OP.
The powers to be in favor of the status quo have an easy game: they would like to outlaw bitcoin because bitcoin would be restrained to serving illegal transactions.
It's  a self-fullfilling prophecy and a blatant fallacy.
Bitcoin will serve more legitimate activities if and when it's legal status is clarified.
We badly need monetary diversity as the current monetary monopoly has proven to result in a disfunctional economy.
It's hard not to take a political stance because laws are passed by politicians and regulators are sponsored by the banking cartel (their self proclaimed independence is a joke: central bankers are selected exclusively from the banking cartel they are supposed to regulate).
As you suggest pointedly, the political stance better be articulate rather than inflamatory.
Then again, bitcoin is the currency of the 99% competing against dollars and euros controlled by the  1%.

Your are right: I was a bit too harsh on them.

I guess my feelings towards wikipedia relate to some bad experience I had trying to propose an article and discovering I was dealing with a kind of anonymous, headless bureaucracy. However I will not assume it is always the case as most articles are very well edited.

They are up to a task that is not simple and they do provide a very useful service.

I vote for Berlin (very pleasant city with friendly people).
Plus I understand from Rick Falkvinge that the Pirate Pirate made close to 10% on local elections recently.

Thanks Grondilu! Je vais essayer ce code dès que possible. Le client léger bitcoin est une belle idée dont l'heure a sonné.

+1 Wikipedia has become an active member of the status quo propaganda squad.

 Their "lmoderators" are state-sponsored or bank-sponsored "experts", mostly from academia, i.e with plenty of time on their hands to exert censorship on anything even remotely likely to disturb the establishment.

Some people have trouble understanding that i'ts easy to use an anonymous system in nominative mode and not the other way around.

The same people usually do not undestand either that we can have trusted third parties in a decentralized system (escrow, hosted wallets etc) but that we cannot turn a centralized banking system in a decentralized network like bitcoin.