That tilted space bar is drawing tears of nostalgia from some of us  

About beenz vs bitcoin : I believe the cash burn rate is much in favor of bitcoin.

Beenz was like a proprietary version of micromint, no ? Or a failed combination of today's Paypal and Flattr.

Bitcoin will live because it's a transaction processing network on top of being a currency.
It can fail as a currency and succeed as a tx proc network: I have posted this humble opinion ever since I am trolling around this forum and yet I keep seeing the topic of an imminent demise of Bitcoin.
Can anyone of the many Paypal-sponsored trolls explain to me HOW bitcoin would fail ?
I have read many bogus reasoning like contention of "shrinking" activity (just not even factual).

I strongly disagree with your view of the world (let alone your prejudiced view of France): competition is the root cause of all corruption and ultimately leads to war.

Competition must be replaced by compassion: it is way more effective in the long run and evrybody is a lot happier with it.

It takes a political stance to state it because politicians get elected on promises predicated on "competition".

I had once a neighbour who was a weasel though.

Interesting blog
Keep up the good vibes. Bitcoin is indeed about crypto-anarchism

@Nagle

This kind of post make you sound like you work for Paypal or some other financial "institutions"..

Apple was founded by a couple of guys out of a garage in California. Hewllet and Packard convened in a garage in Palo Alto.
To me the story of two guys operating out of a house in Florida sounds rather promising.

Proprietary software is doomed and so is Paypal.

BTCDD is proposed as a measure of monetary velocity for bitcoins: that is not the same as transaction volume so I am not sure to be posting on the right thread.

Arithmetically it seems to me that the percentage cannot exceed 50%: in fact it should reach 50% asymptotically.
If x is the average of the last block number seen for any bitcoin, the percentage is (x- N/2) divided by N (N being the current block number).
x should be close to N as velocity increases.

Talking about gravity: money has keplerian caracteristics. More money goes where there is a mass of money.
Banks create money through lending: they prefer to lend to wealthy, solvable individuals and corporations.
Taxes are just one measure to maintain the balance by redistribution.

Talking about medical insurance: health care is not about making money.
To be a medical doctor or a nurse is a to have a job that makes sense.
Everyone in need should have access to free medical care.

A trader may make a ton of money but he or she is wasting is time on this planet.
Derivates are toxic instruments that should be outlawed because incompatible with sustainabable development.
By the same token, shares in any corporation should have a minimum holding period of one quarter.
Etc...

Wealth is often defined as the ability to give. Bill Gates certainly understand this with his Foundation.
Wealth is ok as long as what is given is not taken from someone in need or from someone in the future.
It seems to me that today's wealth is partly borrowed from future generations.

Going back to the "hoarding" topic imho hoarding cannot be lethal for the BTC economy because bitcoins can be used as a meta-currency.
The value of bitcoins in this use case stems from the merits of the bitcoin network as a transaction processing network.
Goods can be sold in state currency with bitcoins being used just as a transaction vehicle (converted in real time at each end of the transaction).
Transaction fees over the bitcoin network can be competitive compared to card schemes.

"vires in numeris" is a known, old latin motto that I have seen before. It is perfectly correct gramatically to mean something like united we stand stronger..

You are assuming that credit issuance is the only way to create money.
This assumption is wrong since money can be created by distribution of a universal dividend without an increase in the money supply.
In that case, there is no need for extra money printing since the amount of dividend diistributed is deducted from the money supply growth allowed to banks by the central bank.
The central bank would simply have to increase the capital requirements and reserve requirements imposed on banks so that they could create less money via credit issuance.

You are not missing anything, you are on target:the banking system is organized in a cartel by the central bank.
Being at the sole source of liquidity enables the financial sector to capture the lion's share of the value added by the entire economy.

There is no study proving that 100% of the money creation must be issued by banks as credit to best serve the general interest of society.
In fact, it is very likekly that the economic optimum is NOT 100%.

Government propaganda is typically all about interest rates, reserve requirements and capital requirements: not a single state-sponsored economist will dare suggest that may be, one day, money could be created in a different way.

Meanwhile, money supply growth by direct distribution to people entails an understanding of the concept of a universal dividend IMHO: the government would distribute money to people who are not borrowers, including the neediest.
Income taxes would enable the government to reclaim the distribution from the richest.
In short, the economic optimum for money supply growth is a mix of credit issuance and universal dividend distribution.

This parcel delivery system is intriguing but there are so many other applications of bitcoin that are a lot simpler to use.
They will ensure that bitcoin is not a hype.
For instance, e-merchants can accept bitcoins for one-click payments just like they do today with Paypal: bitcoins remove the need to disclose credit card information and to pay high transaction fees.

PCI DSS certification cost merchants a fortune: bitcoin is bound to drive these costs down just by competing against credit card check out.
It wont happen overnight but in a few years it is safe to predict that bitcoins will be used for a substantial portion of e-commerce transactions.
Silk Road may be a precursor but certainly not a convincing representation of the bitcoin future.

It's interesting to witness how difficult it is to think out of the box even for a Nobel prize winner in economics.
He cannot help it but project on bitcoins his outdated vision of what a "monetary system" was before the invention of bitcoins.

Perhaps, Krugman new claim for fame is the definition of a new profession: bitcoin-basher.
Given the amount of reaction his moronic article generated, I am convinced that pretty soon some journalists or "economists" will be able to make a reasonable living out of it..

Merci! But the shops are few and far apart..

A very commandable article on blogdial in response to the moronic paper published by the Baker Institute:

http://blogdial.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/precursors-to-bitcoin-legislation-emerge/

Si les bitcoins étaient une monnaie pour le juge, il faudrait lui demander qui en est l'émetteur
Où serait le payeur de dernier recours ?
En réalité, les bitcoins sont une ressource rare et en quantité limitée, comme l'or.

Le fait qu'ils n'aient pas d'application industrielle (contrairement à l'or) ne change rien si on considère l'or et les bitcoins dans leur rôle de "store of value".

Il faudra aussi demander aux juristes si Facebook est une banque centrale, puisque Facebook présente les "Facebook credits" comme une "virtual currency".

I would not mix things up: science is just one way to describe reality and try improve it.
It has proven to be the most effective in many disciplines, including medicine and economics.
Yet people can manipulate the results fo a drug trial or keep the lid on some side effect.
That is not science: it's a crime.

As far as econmics, I believe we would be much better off if a scientific apporoach was taken in lieu of so much dubious, irrelevant research sponsored by banks or following a political agenda.

J'ai soifff je propose que le prochain apéro bitcoin à Paris se fasse dans un bistrot qui accepte les BTC..mais il faudra venir avec ses bitbills ou son wallet mobile

c'est intéressant en effet car les juristes sont confrontés à une invention protéiforme: une devise (comme des euros), une méta-devise (comme l'or), un réseau (des actions Visa ou Mastercard), etc..
Je doute qu'ils comprennent vraiment et je parie qu'ils vont juger en faveur des gouvernants et des possédants, comme d'habitude dans ces cas là.
Ce faisant la justice française permettra à l'innovation de se développer ailleurs qu'en France...
Heureusement, le pire n'est jamais certain.

Right : what bitcoin changes most is the definition of banking and transaction processing.
I would add that bitcoin blurs the boundary between cash currency and electronic money: e.g. with bitbills