Record really close on the decade-averaged:

1. 2011-06-07 through 2011-06-16 W. Avg: 21.09
2. 2011-06-06 through 2011-06-15 W. Avg: 21.04
3. 2011-06-05 through 2011-06-14 W. Avg: 20.97
4. 2013-01-31 through 2013-02-09 W. Avg: 20.91
5. 2011-06-04 through 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 20.79
6. 2013-01-30 through 2013-02-08 W. Avg: 20.64
7. 2011-06-08 through 2011-06-17 W. Avg: 20.43
8. 2011-06-02 through 2011-06-11 W. Avg: 20.41
9. 2013-01-29 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 20.28
10. 2011-06-01 through 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 20.17

And not far on the weekly-averaged:

1. 2011-06-04 through 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 23.38
2. 2011-06-05 through 2011-06-11 W. Avg: 22.62
3. 2011-06-08 through 2011-06-14 W. Avg: 21.42
4. 2011-06-07 through 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 21.41
5. 2013-02-03 through 2013-02-09 W. Avg: 21.41
6. 2011-06-06 through 2011-06-12 W. Avg: 21.31
7. 2011-06-03 through 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 21.30
8. 2013-02-02 through 2013-02-08 W. Avg: 20.78
9. 2013-02-01 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 20.56
10. 2013-01-31 through 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 20.39

Cool fact: If the rest of February attracted no trade, the weighted average for the month would exceed June 2011.

I'm not an expert on this, but AFAIK anything before the @ is good as long as @, ", and \ are backslash-escaped and spaces are between quotes. However, it is extremely rare for email addresses to have @ or \ in them.

"John Doe"@john.doe.com is a valid email address format though, so it makes little sense to reject it.

This seems to make sense—adopting a currency, suffering a loss in the process, through necessity. Although unjust, a global currency may indeed succeed. In future generations, eventually the debt will be entirely repayed.

Regardless, it seems like countries with less Bitcoin now will also have slower adoption of Bitcoin, as they have to pay a debt many would consider unfair. Geographical segregation may not be permanent, but temporary local coins stand to succeed in the short term.

Ah, it supports the raw plus sign but throws up when quotes and spaces are involved. I guess this issue is closed.

Regardless, it seems like a terrible idea to verify email addresses. If this is to prevent SQL injection, I'm sure there are many other ways to do it.

Why? Wouldn't making a clone of it, calling it EarthCoin, be a better choice for you?

If we were altruistic enough to care about the well-being of the Solar System as a whole, we may do it as it is more efficient in the long run. But it is hard to be that altruistic. Cubans may feel the same way in my example.

You are ignoring that Bitcoin also has demurrage, though far less regular. Every coin will eventually be lost, most of them not purposely. Demurrage in Bitcoin can be minimized, but it will never be eliminated.

This would be the reason why the Cubans prefer their own currency, wouldn't it? The Cubans don't gain anything from adopting BTC, because they don't have enough to purchase any Floridian goods.

For example, if Martians used MarsCoin but nobody on Earth had any, would you begin accepting it? There is very little reason to do so.

I went to LocalBitcoins.com recently. This concerned me:


Obviously, Bitcoin has not been uptaken in Cuba. This may not be a problem now, but consider what might happen if Bitcoin becomes an international currency which forms a significant proportion of the wealth.

If the Cubans have less BTC than the nearby Floridians, then they will have less wealth between them. Prices in Cuba will therefore be cheaper to make up for the scarcity in the region. This is not a problem in itself.

However, what if a Floridian comes to Cuba and purchases Cuban goods with Floridian BTC, which is indistinguishable from Cuban BTC? The result is that Cuban goods are funnelled to Florida.

This is not a problem with Bitcoin itself. We have this problem already; that is why many countries export far more than they import. However, Bitcoin could potentially make the problem far worse. Cubans could possibly lose a large chunk of their produce to Floridians, effectively paying a debt they should never have owed.

The Cubans have two solutions to this problem:

1. Export laws prohibiting the export of Cuban goods.
2. "Repay" the debt by exporting Cuban goods.
3. Use CubaCoin, a local Bitcoin fork.

The first solution goes against free trade, and has the unfortunate consequence of funnelling more BTC out of Cuba. The second is unappealing and detrimental to the Cuban standard of living. The third doesn't solve the problem, but is the only solution that isn't deleterious to the local populace.

And so the Cubans will choose the third option.

Is there a reason why this isn't an inevitability?

You know, on a semi-related note, the value of one BTC now has almost exceeded the 1913 US dollar. Are we to reach parity?

Whilst working on my short-term time series analysis, I tried out fitting the price to a yearly cycle. The data is too artificial though, and hindcasting is impossible with the short timeseries involved.

I have tried to document all examples of artificiality I could find in the chart below; however, there are bound to be more. Bitcoin's history is simply too short for any significant seasonal cycle to emerge.

I would buy myself a half-ounce silver round.

SMF does not seem to support '+' symbols in email addresses. I attempted to put a "+bitcointalk" into my email address so that forum-related email could be filtered, but SMF rejected it.

Could this be fixed?

So:

Looks like I forgot about the MyBitcoin mass withdrawals following the Mt. Gox theft. Coins were all funnelled to 1MAazCWMydsQB5ynYXqSGQDjNQMN3HFmEu, it seems. This is now added.

I also bumped Pirate down to first (it stood awkwardly at zeroth before).

The operator does not know that the coins are lost, so treats them as any other coins—the operator will not spend the coins. So the coins are effectively lost.

"Saving" with Bitcoin is probably a very stupid thing to do. It's more of an "investment".

The first block with a transaction is: http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000d1145790a8694403d4063f323d499e655c83426834d4ce2f8dd4a2ee

In this block, Satoshi sent coins to Hal Finney (who is nowadays disabled and unable to participate in Bitcoin).

Update:

Six of the last seven days rank in the top 10. Yesterday ranks #4 at 21.61.

1. 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 29.58
2. 2011-06-08 W. Avg: 27.25
3. 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 24.67
4. 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 21.61
5. 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 21.09
6. 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 20.73
7. 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 20.58
8. 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 20.57
9. 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 20.42
10. 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 20.26
11. 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 20.11
12. 2011-06-07 W. Avg: 19.90
13. 2011-06-15 W. Avg: 19.68
14. 2013-01-30 W. Avg: 19.48
15. 2013-02-02 W. Avg: 19.47
16. 2011-06-14 W. Avg: 19.25
17. 2013-01-29 W. Avg: 19.17
18. 2011-06-16 W. Avg: 18.86
19. 2011-06-06 W. Avg: 18.46
20. 2013-01-28 W. Avg: 18.34

In the top twenty weekly weighted averages, the last 7 days now ranks #7. It is the highest-ranked week not fully in June 2011. Note that some weeks include days without any trade. Breaking the weekly all-time high may not be so far away; I would venture a guess in that this will happen before the daily all-time high is breached.

1. 2011-06-04 through 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 23.38
2. 2011-06-05 through 2011-06-11 W. Avg: 22.62
3. 2011-06-08 through 2011-06-14 W. Avg: 21.42
4. 2011-06-07 through 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 21.41
5. 2011-06-06 through 2011-06-12 W. Avg: 21.31
6. 2011-06-03 through 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 21.30
7. 2013-02-01 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 20.56
8. 2013-01-31 through 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 20.39
9. 2011-06-09 through 2011-06-15 W. Avg: 20.25
10. 2013-01-30 through 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 20.19
11. 2013-01-29 through 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 19.97
12. 2013-01-28 through 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 19.71
13. 2013-01-27 through 2013-02-02 W. Avg: 19.56
14. 2013-01-26 through 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 19.37
15. 2011-06-10 through 2011-06-16 W. Avg: 19.06
16. 2011-06-02 through 2011-06-08 W. Avg: 18.83
17. 2013-01-25 through 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 18.70
18. 2013-01-24 through 2013-01-30 W. Avg: 18.00
19. 2011-06-13 through 2011-06-19 W. Avg: 17.84
20. 2013-01-23 through 2013-01-29 W. Avg: 17.79

The 10-day weighted average pits our most recent decade at #7 at 20.28. It is the highest-ranked decade not fully in June 2011. Note that a few of the June decades include days without trade.

1. 2011-06-07 through 2011-06-16 W. Avg: 21.09
2. 2011-06-06 through 2011-06-15 W. Avg: 21.04
3. 2011-06-05 through 2011-06-14 W. Avg: 20.97
4. 2011-06-04 through 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 20.79
5. 2011-06-08 through 2011-06-17 W. Avg: 20.43
6. 2011-06-02 through 2011-06-11 W. Avg: 20.41
7. 2013-01-29 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 20.28
8. 2011-06-01 through 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 20.17
9. 2011-06-03 through 2011-06-12 W. Avg: 20.14
10. 2013-01-28 through 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 19.94
11. 2013-01-27 through 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 19.74
12. 2013-01-26 through 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 19.53
13. 2011-06-09 through 2011-06-18 W. Avg: 19.28
14. 2013-01-25 through 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 19.06
15. 2013-01-24 through 2013-02-02 W. Avg: 18.70
16. 2013-01-23 through 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 18.50
17. 2011-05-31 through 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 18.47
18. 2011-06-10 through 2011-06-19 W. Avg: 18.33
19. 2013-01-22 through 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 18.23
20. 2011-06-13 through 2011-06-22 W. Avg: 17.84

The 30-day weighted average has the most recent 30 days ranking #15, while the most recent 60 days ranks #14 on the 60-day list.

The past 6 91-day periods have, one over the other, broken the all-time high.

1. 2012-11-09 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 15.17
2. 2012-11-08 through 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 15.00
3. 2012-11-07 through 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 14.87
4. 2012-11-06 through 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 14.78
5. 2012-11-05 through 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 14.66
6. 2012-11-04 through 2013-02-02 W. Avg: 14.58
7. 2011-05-26 through 2011-08-24 W. Avg: 14.46
8. 2011-05-27 through 2011-08-25 W. Avg: 14.43
9. 2012-11-03 through 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 14.43
10. 2011-06-03 through 2011-09-01 W. Avg: 14.39

In a similar vein, the past 61 365-day periods have broken the all-time high consecutively. Even so, the averages are below 9 USD; although Bitcoin prices are often high, it is very rare for them to remain high for a prolonged period of time.

1. 2012-02-09 through 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 8.85
2. 2012-02-08 through 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 8.76
3. 2012-02-07 through 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 8.71
4. 2012-02-06 through 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 8.68
5. 2012-02-05 through 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 8.62
6. 2012-02-04 through 2013-02-02 W. Avg: 8.60
7. 2012-02-03 through 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 8.54
8. 2012-02-02 through 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 8.50
9. 2012-02-01 through 2013-01-30 W. Avg: 8.42
10. 2012-01-31 through 2013-01-29 W. Avg: 8.39
15. 2012-01-26 through 2013-01-24 W. Avg: 8.17
20. 2012-01-21 through 2013-01-19 W. Avg: 7.96
25. 2012-01-16 through 2013-01-14 W. Avg: 7.80
30. 2012-01-11 through 2013-01-09 W. Avg: 7.71
35. 2012-01-06 through 2013-01-04 W. Avg: 7.64
40. 2012-01-01 through 2012-12-30 W. Avg: 7.54
45. 2011-12-27 through 2012-12-25 W. Avg: 7.47
50. 2011-12-22 through 2012-12-20 W. Avg: 7.40
55. 2011-12-17 through 2012-12-15 W. Avg: 7.27
60. 2011-12-12 through 2012-12-10 W. Avg: 7.17
61. 2011-12-11 through 2012-12-09 W. Avg: 7.15

Bi, tri, etc. are Latin-derived prefixes for 2, 3, etc. A bit represents an amount of information such that there are 2 possible states. Bitllionaire is therefore a synonym for billionaire, which also looks equally similar.

OP obviously intended it as a portmanteau of "Bitcoin" and "millionaire", though.

Please use this destination address:
13G7pyZuRF1ge9JEijdTV1qLm5H8je2iXq

That's a day's volume, all in sells. I doubt they are "barely noticed".