Thanks to Jon Matonis!

May I suggest you rename it to trail analysis or something else. Taint has unfortunately become a pretty loaded word and will probably give the wrong idea to quite a few people.

Awesome. Slowly but surely were getting to the point where even Gavin's grandma can use Bitcoin

btw the correct spelling is Bitcoin  (protocol, payment system, node network) and a bitcoin or bitcoins (currency units)

I doubt they'll allow bitcoins but interesting nonetheless.

Actually scratch that, why focus on the negative right? I guess the good news is their experiment of digital currency failed which eliminates a Bitcoin's potential competitor.

Of course he does: matonis.

This is bullshit and you know it. And if you don't, I'm going to stop wasting my time with someone who clearly has no idea how people act and why they act the way they act.

Yes there would be arbitrary rules imposed, but not collectively, not with violence, and not by a ruler, but by those consumers who felt such rules are what they require before they'd be willing to do business. That's how a "free" market works.

A pretty accurate answer would be: It can be untraceable if you take extra precautions and know what you're doing.

It will be a market regulated by strictly market consumers i.e. a free market. I already told you free doesn't mean anything goes. Free means no rulers imposing arbitrary rules through violence.

I don't... YET.

Just like in the physical world where we do have the identities of all participants (for the vast majority anyway), if the need arises, the market will provide this service in the online world.

Here's a friendly advice, don't pretend to be smarter then the market, because you're not, no one is.

Get a short term loan for the escrow to cover the goods he'll send to you.

You make no sense yet again. I don't understand how you can be so naive to think that you can cause trouble in a market and somehow escape your now damaged reputation by simply switching to a different market.

It's a two way street, what part of this don't you understand? 

What you fail to account for is the fact that if they abused this leverage the other participants on the open exchanges would punish them eventually by refusing to do business with them. In other words you fail to realize this market regulated by strictly market consumers i.e. a free market is always a two way street.

I'm sorry but you are making zero sense.

I don't really understand how you think you argued against anything I stated. If you can't participate, you aren't a consumer in that market by definition, but the market is still regulated strictly by it's consumers, whether that's limited to only people who can afford to participate is irrelevant or are you suggesting to force people to make participation affordable to everyone?

In other words you aren't a consumer in a market if you can't afford to be a consumer in that market.

A free market in reality isn't really free (as in anything goes kind of free), but rather it's a market regulated by strictly market consumers therefor it's up to the consumers what kind of a market a "free" market really is.

I believe here's my answer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg972865#msg972865

Again your lack of knowledge in economics is showing, since suggesting a thief is going to still from the poor is the most basic case of lack of an incentive for such an act to actually occur in the real world unless of course you believe all thieves are lunatics not acting rationally in their own self interest.

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.


That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.