Yeah, that 1 in 100 million quote was when they were worthless 0.001 or so I think ... so from there we have already appreciates 10,000 times so those odds are much better already, obviously the pay-off is not as large but neither is the risk  ... cost averaging, (buy all the way up )

What's 10^8 divided by 10^3 .. 10^5 .... still a 1 in 100,000 long shot so plenty of room for more success or failure.

I think Hal Finney said it best with 1 in 100 million longshot on bitcoin making it big. For some computer time or exchange conversion fees I'll take those odds.

Things this revolutionary do not come along very often, like only every 300 years to a millenia in the past have we had changes in philosophical and technical aspects of the medium of exchange.

IF it comes in, it is going to be big, there is no doubt about that, it is a huge swing for the fence. But then when you can see for yourself the product of the brainpower that has gone into it is worth some confidence. The current problems surrounding the inefficient allocation and distribution of monetary information has been identified and a technical solution has been found that seems to work so far.

The bottom line is, money is about power. Recent history has demonstrated terrible abuses by those entrusted with much of those powers. Maybe through no fault of their own but just the centralised nature of the system they inherited and their own individual weaknesses and greedy responses to the situations they found themselves in. Hopefully the new wealthy elite will act more responsibly ... (hops in the boat off to "The Island" ... outta here.   )

http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/6187527905/bitcoin-chauming-blinding-transfer-service

I'm interested in the mechanics of how these will be carried out. Anybody have any insights?

ArtForz?

j-bit  .... sounds like something you might find on the silk road (not that I've ever been there)

If the decimal place moves 6 places to the right as described in the other thread then this is a moot discussion, as fun as it is. Then we go back to super-naming instead of sub-naming.

Ociam?

You still haven't defined exactly what you mean when you loosely refer to "resources" everywhere in your arguments, so they are based on sand. Not science.

I have already shown, and you haven't refuted, that the actual resources humanity desires is a temporal phenomena that changes with technological advance. It can change quite abruptly, look around at what is happening right here. Domestic scale fusion reactors may come on stream next year.

Are you saying that humanity is going to cease to advance technologically?

Is this what you mean by running out of resources?

As long as we are still leaving the planet in better shape for the next generation than we found it, there is no reason to think the place has become unihabitable for future generations because of "resource depletion". You are conflating pollution and resource extraction if that is what you are erroneously thinking.

You know what? For most cop departments if this can get the dealers off the corners and streets then it solves a big PIA for them, and gets city offices off their backs. For beat cops, it is now someone else's problem (SEP) the institutionalised mantra for "all better". All power to Silk Road to clean up the streets.

Sweet .. nice chassis, step up from the cheap and cheerful angle aluminum.

Fits in a rack? Stackable?

How much?

Generally, they hiss 'n spit and make loud whooping noises.

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8884.0

On a more serious note, someone said a german economist said on TV after the Speigel article that bitcoins didn't seem like it had any problems to him. Soon after some big lobby group came out with some baseless, scare-mongering press release.

pretty sad huh? ... pizza and socks ...  oh and riding GPUs, Slim Pickens like into oblivion

Yeah, the more you dig the more you find ... satoshi must have had some exposure to control system theory (not to mention the myriad other topics). The stability during boot-strapping (what we are experiencing now) is actually harder to achieve than in the stable case ... and then it combines a system that caters for both.

Wonder if there were any design notes on that aspect of it?

Aside: in the middle of the financial crises in 2008 Henry Paulson placed Neel Kashkari, a recruit also from Goldman Sachs with prior training and experience in multi-variate aerospace control systems, in charge of monetary systems at the Treasury. (i.e. the exchange stabilisation slush fund, the PPT).

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/neel-kashkari-tarp-bailout-czar-leaves-washington-california/story?id=9269413

"According to the Washington Post, Kashkari, who left his post at the interim assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability in May 2009, is enjoying his new life, a move he told the paper he's dubbed the "Washington detox."

Today, Kashkari's daily routine includes chopping wood found on his property near the Truckee River and building a shed, ..."

I think the offer has been closed now.

However misguided, it raises some interesting thoughts about if/when bitcoin network is matured. If difficulty is stabilising at some rate this is likely because the exchange value has stabilised. If the exchange value has stabilised there is much more likely to be merchants and vendors willing to exchange, trade, do free commerce, rather than save. The result of this is more transactions on the network and thus more fees.

So here is yet another self-regulating mechanism tucked into the inner workings of bitcoin, this time as a mature network. More stability of exchange value leads to more commerce leads to more fees => more mining => more security. Also, a drop in exchange value leads to more commerce (people cashing out) and more fees. Net effect, it drives difficulty towards some temporarily stable value (stationary fixed point) on fees only mining basis.

Fixing bitcoin to electricity prices would create the unnecessary tension of supply/demand of electricity mismatch with supply/demand for unregulated free currency. You would waste untold energy fighting two vastly different markets. Suggestercoin credits that could always be redeemed for a fixed quantity of kW.hr electricity are a viable market option but only if trade freely with bitcoin.

You could use the Open Transaction platform to issue Suggestercoin electric credits yourself. People could trade in a truly anonymous exchange then. But how would you guarantee that they could be redeemed for electricity?

https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki

https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Moneychanger/wiki

You mean like pizzas?

On the regression theorem, we can trace bitcoins value chain all the way back to when it was first used in exchange for pizzas.

A market demand for a locker space on private property, guaranteed without surveillance? Swipe card key opening or combination, sent in mail granting access to locker.

This. The only resource we can truly run out of, and be stuffed as a species, is minds for critical thinking.

We create the resources. Until it is desirable and valuable to humans it is an inanimate, worthless, object. When it has utility it becomes a resource. 300 years ago large, untapped oil, gas and uranium deposits were unknown to man and worth nothing. The prized resources from that same era likely have been substituted by better, cheaper, technically superior alternatives and are now worthless again.

Resource scarcity is the same old Malthusian myth that won't die, no matter how many times it is proved wrong. Like Keynesian monetary theories.

Eadem mutata resurgo

"Though changed, I shall arise the same."

Can be philosophical, spiritual or technical. Irrepressible, many facets of the same one, logarithmic spirals, rebirth, resurrection.

So our definitions of "early adopter" and huge must differ because this doesn't make any sense.

I suppose except for Satoshi everybody has an earlier adopter. So by that logic everybody should be worried about all the other people who adopted bitcoin before them?