Electronic transfers in the existing interbanking system takes longer than a day to confirm, whether or not your bank lets you see the new balance already or not.  If 90% of the miners dropped out, the system would be fine.  It would take a while for the difficulty to update, and there would be a finite amount of transactions that could get processed, but this would mostly be an annoyance than anything.  The average block is less than a tenth of the current max block size anyway.

I wanted to get it done before the userbase grew too large to do it easily.

Granted, everyone makes a few errors every now and again, but if Stossel was as bad as you (and your sources, don't you do your own fact checking?  I do, and I usually find that both Stossel and Beck are both much more accurate than the bloggers will admit; particularly when paired up against their ideological opposition such as that one guy who doesn't have a show anymore or that other guy that got fired from MSNBC.  What were their names again?  Hard to remember, as only about four people actually watched either show.) claim then he wouldn't be able to stay on television.  He would have been sued out of the business long ago.

A cursory look at your links tells me straight away that the sources that you trust don't deserve it.

No much editing is usually necessary.  Most people really are stupid.

The Wall Street Journal Online is epic!

I wanted to do it back in November.

Your concerns are invalid, because this is not a fiat.  The closest thing to Bitcoin is a LETS with a net postive balance.  In fact, that is exactly what it is, a LETS for the Internet.

By definition, a fiat currency always has a central bank.

And you're an ass.  This was a neutral blog post, what is your problem with Stossel?  Are you his ex-wife or what?

Bitcoin can functionally do a 'stock split' by moving the decimal point in the client's default display setting..

@NO_SLAVE

Don't assume that you are the high mark of Austrian economic understanding on this forum, nor that you actually understand the underlying economics of Bitcoin.  From what I have seen thus far, neither is likely.  Moving the decimal place is not equivalent to hyperinflation.  In an inflationary state, money is created disproportionately to the economy.  As the central bank creates more money, the existing money loses value.  This is not what we are suggesting here.  In the case of Bitcoin shifting the decimal place, all players have exactly the same relative value as they had before; both in relation to each other and in relation to the non-bitcoin world.  All that divisibilty is already present and accounted for in the system, and the system was designed for it to happen eventually anyway.  The decimal point was placed where it is as an arbitrary design decision by Satoshi, who literally placed the decimal point in the middle of a 16 decimal integer.  The block reward is 50 BTC, but if you look at any block with your own eyes, the system does not use a decimal point at all, and awards the winning miner 5,000,000,000 of the smallest possible unit.  Nothing is changing except how that value variable is displayed by the client, and the client does it because it would otherwise be difficult to read.

I finally get to post a new one...

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-missouri-lawmakers-want-to-shut-down-drug-dealing-website-20110607,0,2162224.story

Used to be able to.

Dude, that was mean!  I had to check!

Did that too.  No go.  Must be blocked.

Bruce Wagner

Yes, very.

I did all that to begin with, and I can't see any form.

I've noticed a small oversight.  There does not seem to be any way for a user to deposit in bitcoins, there is only the FAQ that tells the reader generally how this is done, and not a link to the market's bitcoin receiving address to actually do so.

Born and raised.

well done.  What ever became of the Point-of-Sale inititive?